Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BUCKS WATER BOARD BILL

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

PETITIONS

British Museum

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked by the Trustees of the British Museum to present a Petition, which they have annually to submit to this House, explaining the financial position and praying for aid. The Petition recites the funded income of the Trustees, and points out that the establishment is, necessarily, attended with an expense far beyond the annual produce of the funds, and the Trust cannot, with benefit to the public, be carried on without the aid of Parliament. It concludes with this Prayer:
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution of the Trust reposed in them by Parliament, for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge, as to your House shall seem meet.—(Queen's recommendation signified.)

Petition referred to the Committee of Supply.

Gilbert and Sullivan Operas (Copyright)

Mr. Turner: I have the honour to present a Petition signed by half a million people—I could carry only 100,000 copies; the other 400,000 are lodged with

the bank—regarding the copyright of the Gilbert parts of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas. The House will appreciate that the Sullivan part expired nine years ago, with disastrous results—"hot" Mikados; and I make no reference to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), should he be present. The object of the Petition is to preserve what many of us believe to be part of our cultural heritage.
I do this for three reasons: first, that the good lady who organised the Petition is a constituent; second, that I am a grandson of one of the original Savoyards, George Grossmith; and third, that I signed the Petition and am in full agreement with it.
Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that steps will be taken to perpetuate in some public cultural body the copyrights of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Departmental Staff

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the number of staff employed in his Department now compares with the numbers employed by the Ministries of Agriculture and Fisheries and Food in 1951.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): There were 15,384 staff in my Ministry on 1st January, 1959, compared with 42,427 in the two Ministries on 1st January, 1951.

Sir A. Hurd: Is not this reduction of 27,000 in the Ministry staff a remarkable testimony to the efficiency and economy of the present Government in carrying on their agricultural policy? Will my hon. Friend make sure that his Department does not weary of well-doing?

Mr. Godber: I would not dissent from the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, and I can assure him that we shall be diligent in trying to earn his further praise in due course.

Warble Fly

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what immediate plans he has for the more effective eradication of the warble fly which harasses cattle in the summer months and causes serious losses in the leather industry; whether his attention has been called to the claims made for a chemical spray to prevent warble fly attack; and what other lines of investigation are being pursued.

Mr. Godber: An extensive publicity campaign will again be undertaken to draw the attention of stock owners to the importance of carrying out derris dressings to control warble fly infestation of cattle. Field trials of systemic drugs to destroy the warble fly larvae in cattle are in progress. I have seen an advertisement of a spray claimed to serve the purpose mentioned in the second part of my hon. Friend's Question, but I have no further information about this spray.

Sir A. Hurd: Are we getting anywhere in our programme of trying to eradicate the warble fly? We go on year after year with the same kind of programme. Can my hon. Friend tell us when, as with bovine tuberculosis, he hopes to bring an end to this pest?

Mr. Godber: I can understand my hon. Friend's concern about this most important matter. I can assure him that the work on systemic drugs is important. I have seen some of it myself, and I have hopes that we may find a solution.

Mr. Champion: In view of the evil of this pest, will not the hon. Gentleman try some other method besides those that he has used in the past, and try to ensure that farmers use the preventatives which are available to them?

Mr. Godber: Certainly. If any new preparation is put forward to the Veterinary Therapeutic Testing Board, it will be very glad to consider any suggestions which are made to them.

Eggs

Mrs. Emmet: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will introduce legislation for the purpose of standardising the temperature of chilled egg.

Mr. Godber: No satisfactory amendment of existing legislation regarding chilled eggs has so far been found. While my right hon. Friend is arranging for the matter to be further studied, I can hold out little hope of early legislation.

Mrs. Emmet: Is my hon. Friend aware that until a standard for chilled eggs has been definitely established cooled eggs are taken as chilled eggs, thus lowering their price? Does he agree that it is really urgent to press on and establish such a standard?

Mr. Godber: I think that this is an important point, and I should like to find a solution. It is very difficult to find an effective definition which would not vitiate the safeguards which, I am sure, my hon. Friend will agree are equally necessary for the consumer against stale eggs being put forward as fresh.

Agriculture (Small Farmers) Act (Welsh Applications)

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers in each of the Welsh counties up to the latest convenient date have submitted applications under the Agriculture (Small Farmers) Act; and what additional organisation he has set up to deal with these applications.

Mr. Godber: To 13th March, 3,601 applications had been received from farmers in Wales and Monmouthshire. With permission, I will circulate the individual county figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. My Ministry's staff has been re-organised and strengthened, where necessary, to deal with these applications.

Mr. Gower: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer, but can he say how the number of applications from Wales compares with the number made elsewhere; secondly, can he give an assurance that there will be no undue delay in considering them?

Mr. Godber: The applications from Wales have come in extremely well, probably in greater numbers than from any other part of the United Kingdom. We shall certainly see that no avoidable delay occurs, but this is a complicated matter and it is bound to take a little time for applications to be dealt with.

The following table shows applications received up to 13th March, 1959, under the Agriculture (Small Farmers) Act, by Counties in Wales:


County



Anglesey
…
…
…
334


Brecon
…
…
…
107


Caernarvon
…
…
…
280


Cardigan
…
…
…
518


Carmarthen
…
…
…
695


Denbigh
…
…
…
351


Flint
…
…
…
136


Glamorgan
…
…
…
230


Merioneth
…
…
…
108


Monmouth
…
…
…
143


Montgomery
…
…
…
149


Pembroke
…
…
…
458


Radnor
…
…
…
92



3,601

Agricultural Workers

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that adequate steps will be taken to train an increased number of skilled workers for the agricultural industry in the years 1961–65, when 35 per cent. more 15-yearold children are expected to leave the schools than in previous years.

Mr. Godber: The industry's own apprenticeship scheme, which has my right hon. Friend's full support, is designed to meet the need for providing young workers with systematic training. This, however, is linked with the wider question of further education in agriculture which was recently reviewed by the De La Warr Committee, the recommendations of which are now being considered.

Mr. Mallalieu: Will the Minister agree that the occasion of the "bulge" is one which should be seized, and is it not far better to have rather more skilled workers than are needed than too few?

Mr. Godber: I entirely agree that we need as many skilled workers as we can have. I hope that anyone who can will urge members of the industry to support the apprenticeship scheme as much as they can. That is a very valuable way in which to help.

Smallholders (Loans)

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present rate of interest charged under Section 54 of the Agriculture Act, 1947,

which deals with loans for working capital; what is the latest figure of applications; and how this compares with those for the years 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1958.

Mr. Godber: The answer to the first part of the Question is 6¼ per cent. The answer to the second part contains a number of figures which I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Slater: Is the Minister not aware that many smallholders, such as those in my constituency, have found things most difficult during the last two or three years because of the high interest rates charged? Does he not think it is time we had another review of these interest rates now being imposed in view of what people want to do on their smallholdings? In view of the rates which have operated during the last three years, since 1957, which have appeared in the Smallholdings Report for 1957–58—from 6 per cent. to 6½, from 6½ to 7 and 7¼, from 7¼ down to 7 per cent., and then, on the hon. Gentleman's own figures, now down to 6 per cent.—does he not think that something more ought to be done to ease the burden?

Mr. Godber: I agree that the rates have been high, although, as I have indicated, they have fallen somewhat to 6¼ per cent., not 6 per cent. They have been as high as 7 or 7¼, which I realise has inhibited people, but I hope that the downward tendency which has begun will give some help. I fully take the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to keep these rates as low as possible.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the most effective way to help farmers, small farmers particularly, is to arrange for them to have cheap money, which, as a method, is preferable to having a lot of subsidies?

Mr. Godber: I think that it is necessary for credit to be at commercial rates. I think that it is far better for the farming community to receive support through the system we have of deficiency payments and other means and that they should have the same form of credit rates as are available to industry generally.

Mr. Champion: Will the Minister agree that what happens here by deficiency of payments is that money is taken out of


the taxpayer's pocket and paid to the farmer in order that he can give it to the moneylender?

Mr. Godber: It could be argued the other way round, too. What we want is to see that farmers are in a position to pay a fair commercial rate. Why a fair commercial rate is always spoken of as a rate for the moneylender, I cannot really understand; I think that it is always effective whatever Government may be in power.

Following is the information:

From the 1st April, 1958, to 28th February, 1959, 97 loans to smallholders were approved, amounting to £112,215. The position during the three preceding financial years was as follows:—


April-March
Number of loans approved
Total amount of loans






£


1955–56
…
…
187
209,729


1956–57
…
…
120
132,318


1957–58
…
…
114
122,971

Acquisition of Land (Smallholdings)

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restrictions are still in force on local authorities regarding the acquisition of land for the creation of new holdings; and how such restrictions of expenditure affected County Durham.

Mr. Godber: Smallholdings authorities require my right hon. Friend's approval under Section 48 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, to acquire land for smallholdings, and the approval of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, under Sections 166 and 195 of the Local Government Act, 1933, to use capital moneys or raise loans for the purpose. The Government's present policy is to encourage smallholdings authorities to concentrate on improving existing properties rather than acquiring new ones; but County Durham has submitted two proposals for acquisition in the last three years, and both were approved.

Potatoes

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what decision has been reached in respect of the

future of the £300,000 worth of Polish potatoes, the import of which was contemplated, but which are suspected of being affected with ring rot.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend is still considering this matter. I have nothing to add at present to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 9th March.

Mr. Dodds: Can the Minister deny that our officials have inspected these potatoes and have reported that they are diseased? In view of the fact that last year we had to refuse to allow Polish potatoes to come into this country because of disease, how is it that there has been in the trade agreement this £300,000 worth of potatoes. and can we be assured that if they are diseased they will not be allowed in at all?

Mr. Godber: On the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I can assure him that if they are diseased and likely to affect our stocks they will not be allowed in. I can give that assurance at once. I should explain that in a trade agreement quantities are often included which, of course, must be subject to plant health arrangements There is no form of undertaking which has been given here, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that this point was fully realised by the Polish Government when the agreement was concluded; there is no question of bad faith here. They understand the position entirely and the health position will be fully safeguarded.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total tonnage of potatoes imported since 1st January, 1959, from Egypt found to be affected with brown rot and ring rot; and, in view of the dangers involved in this connection, what action has been and is to be taken concerning the disposal of these affected potatoes.

Mr. Godber: Brown rot but not ring rot has been found in one cargo of about 800 tons of Egyptian potatoes recently landed at Liverpool. My right hon. Friend has taken action to prevent these going through normal retail channels. There should, therefore, be no risk of disease being spread to our own crops from these consignments.
In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is responsible for plant health regulations in Scotland, tells me that two cargoes totalling about 812 tons of Egyptian potatoes which recently arrived at Glasgow and Leith were found to be infected with bacterial rot, but not with ring rot.

Mr. Dodds: Is not brown rot banned so far as this country is concerned? The hon. Gentleman says that the potatoes are not going through the ordinary channels, but is it not a fact that these diseased potatoes have gone for potato crisps and that some of them have gone to fish and chip shops? Cannot we do better than that?

Mr. Godber: As regards the potatoes at Liverpool, I have no information that any have gone to fish and chip shops. Some may have gone to the crisp factories, but, in those circumstances, it would be done under strict restrictions through my health inspectors, who insist that the peel is dealt with and the bags are destroyed so that there can be no question of any infection.

Meat (Inspection)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the percentages of uninspected meat for human consumption coming out of slaughterhouses inside and outside county boroughs, respectively, at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Godber: Latest returns available from local authorities indicate that about 98 per cent. of meat was inspected in county boroughs and about 90 per cent. elsewhere.

Mr. Hayman: Whilst welcoming the improvement which has taken place in the last 12 months, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman can give any indication when the remaining 10 per cent. outside county boroughs is likely to be dealt with?

Mr. Godber: We are making good progress and, with the continuation of sound Conservative Government, we might reach it at any time.

Irish Cattle

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a statement on the arrange-

ments under which Irish cattle will he allowed to enter Great Britain when tuberculosis has been eradicated from cattle herds in this country.

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. The Government have informed the Government of the Irish Republic that for five years after the date on which Great Britain is declared free of bovine tuberculosis we shall be prepared to allow the continued importation of once-tested cattle into Great Britain subject to the same safeguards as apply at present. The arrangements will be subject to annual review. Their purpose is to enable our requirements to be fully met by attested cattle at the end of the five-year period. I am circulating a fuller statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir A. Hurd: Does my hon. Friend's Department recognise that there is a disease risk in this proposed arrangement, necessary as it might be, and that as we become less and less affected by bovine tuberculosis our cattle will have less resistance to the infection? What proportion of Irish cattle now coming in under the single test arrangement have proved to have bovine tuberculosis?

Mr. Godber: We realise that there is an element of risk, but provided that the isolation period of 60 days is strictly observed we think there is little danger of reinfection to our own herd. Certainly, that has been our experience in our existing attested areas. Concerning the percentage rate of reactors coming in from the Republic of Ireland, the last official figure I had was 2½ per cent., but I understand that since then it has come down to between 1½ and 2 per cent.

Mr. Champion: Do the Irish authorities accept the five-year period as reasonable? I know that there are difficulties, but would it have been possible to have screwed it down a little bit lower than the five years? As the hon. Gentleman has said, there is a considerable risk.

Mr. Godber: We considered this most carefully. Until recently, progress in Ireland has not been nearly as fast as we would have wished, but recently the Irish have made great strides. It would be unrealistic for us to hope for completion in less than five years, but we are determined to maintain that figure and we have set it as a target, which I very much hope the Irish will be able to attain.

Following is the statement:
It is the Government's intention that as soon as possible after 1960, when Great Britain is expected to be virtually free of bovine tuberculosis, imports of store cattle into Great Britain shall be confined to attested animals. The Government recognises, however, that enough attested cattle are unlikely to be available for export from the Irish Republic by 1961. To ban imports of non-attested cattle immediately would therefore be likely to cause hardship to many farmers who rely on imported cattle and to affect our beef supplies. The Government have therefore informed the Government of the Republic that we shall be prepared to allow the continued importation into Great Britain of cattle which have passed a single tuberculin test not more than fourteen days before export, for a period of five years after the date on which Great Britain is declared free of bovine tuberculosis. The movement of such cattle on to farms in Great Britain will be permitted on the same conditions as at present apply to their movement on to farms where attested herds are kept, and my right hon. Friend is advised that under these conditions once-tested cattle may he imported without significant risk of reintroducing tuberculosis to our cattle herds.
The arrangements will be subject to annual review in the light of experience, but will not be terminated before the end of the five-year period except after consultation with the Government of the Irish Republic. The purpose of the arrangements is to enable our requirements to be fully met by attested cattle at the end of the five-year period.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Destitute and Homeless

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what provision is made for giving assistance to those who are destitute and homeless and who cannot give an address.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Anyone who is destitute can get National Assistance whether he can give an address or not. The assistance may not always be in money; if he has no home to go to, it may take the form of a voucher for food and accommodation at a hostel or lodging house or of admission to a reception centre.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Minister aware that there are cases in which keepers of lodging houses are not prepared to take vouchers? Will he consider instances of this kind?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind

and will send it to me, or to the chairman of the Board, I will gladly look into it.

Pensions (Value)

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what was the percentage of the married pensioners' 42s. in October, 1946, compared with the prevailing average earnings of men in October, 1946; what was the 42s. pension expressed as a percentage of women's earnings in the same year; and what would be the married couple's pension if it were raised to the same percentage rate of the men's earnings in October, 1958 or to the same percentage of women's earnings in October, 1958.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In October, 1946, the sum of 42s. amounted to 34·8 per cent. of the average earnings of men included in the Ministry of Labour's half-yearly inquiry; and this percentage of the corresponding average in October, 1958, was 89s. 4d. The corresponding figures for women were 64·4 per cent. and 86s. 2d.

Mr. McKay: Apparently, it is admitted that the industrial relationship is much lower now than it was in 1946. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why we cannot bring the pensions up to the same industrial relationship as in 1946? Could he not go a little further and say how much it would cost to bring them up a little higher to improve the position beyond the 1946 level?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The reason for which the hon. Member asks is that the percentage was allowed to drop between 1946 and 1951. If one takes the 1951 date, the percentage today is better than it was at that date.

Mr. McKay: I am not taking 1951 but 1946.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member asked for the reason. Although he may not like it, he has got it.

Elderly War Widows (Increased Pension)

Mr. Gurden: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he now has any proposals to help elderly war widows.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir. We have been giving a good deal of thought to the problems of the large number of


elderly war widows, mainly, of course, 1914–18 War widows. The representations which we have received from the voluntary bodies concerned, and the reports of our own welfare officers, confirm that the most difficult problems affecting war widows are in large measure confined to the most elderly. It has, therefore, been decided to introduce a new allowance at the rate of 10s. a week for all war widows of 70 and over. This will take effect from the first pay day in June. The cost will be about £1½ million in a full year.

Mr. Gurden: The Service organisations as well as the older widows will much appreciate this very good news. How many of the war widows will be affected?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: About 58,000.

Mr. W. R. Williams: How many widows will be excluded from the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has just enumerated, and why has he accepted the age of 70 as the correct age for the proposals which he is now introducing? Secondly, are widows receiving Industrial Injuries pensions included in this proposal?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer to the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question is that this proposal is confined to war widows. The choice of the age of 70 results from a careful study of the problem, which, as I said in my main Answer, makes it abundantly clear that the main difficulties persisting in connection with war widows since the main rates of benefit were raised last year are confined largely to this substantial group over 70 years of age. As regards any figures which the hon. Member may have in mind, for safety's sake I had better ask him to put them down.

Mr. Marquand: Has it not always been the practice that the Industrial Injuries benefits should keep in step with those under the war pensions scheme? What is the reason for this differentiation now? Is not the position of widows over the age of 70 equally difficult whether they draw an Industrial Injuries pension or even a simple, straightforward National Insurance pension? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to protect these elderly widows from the effects of the Government's Rent Act.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer to the first part of that question is that it has not been the case, particularly with reference to allowances, that the two schemes have remained in parallel. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman may recall that some little time ago we introduced an age allowance for disabled war pensioners which did not have corresponding provisions in the Industrial Injuries scheme. Indeed, there are other examples which, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall. Therefore, the fact that this proposal is made in the war pensions sphere only does not violate any previously laid down principle.

Mr. Marquand: Will the Minister answer the latter part of my question: what of the 52,000 widows drawing National Insurance pensions who have been forced to resort to National Assistance largely because they cannot afford to meet the present rents?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is a statement dealing with war pensions and involving an amendment of the war pensions instruments. The right hon. Gentleman does not lack opportunities to discuss National Insurance problems.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

National Coal Board (Research Staff)

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: asked the Paymaster-General if he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board that any reduction in its non-industrial staff shall not be applied in the same proportion to research staffs, without his specific approval.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): No, Sir. The Board has no intention of reducing the research effort which is of great importance, but it is for the Board to decide what staff is required to carry it out.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a certain amount of anxiety on this subject? Does he not agree that his noble Friend the Minister of Power has a rather special responsibility for research? Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not the


time to cut down on research in the coal industry, whether from the point of view of coal getting or of coal utilisation?

Sir I. Horobin: I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, who will be pleased to know that expenditure this year is not likely to differ materially from expenditure last year. My hon. and gallant Friend will, I am sure, agree that we should all be searching always for economies. This is a small instalment.

Compensation Payments

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Paymaster-General what will be the estimated compensation payable this year to the former owners of coal mines scheduled for closure in 1959; and whether he will take steps to ensure that such payments shall cease immediately such closures take place.

Sir I. Horobin: The answer to the first part of the Question is "None, Sir". The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how much has been paid in the past? Whatever the figure, it was too much.

Sir I. Horobin: That is very possible, because the figure was settled by a Socialist Government, but I do not think that that arises out of this Question.

Demand

Mr. Neal: asked the Paymaster-General what plans he has made to arrest the declining demand for coal during 1959.

Sir I. Horobin: The Government have already announced a number of measures to increase industrial activity and these should result in increasing demands for coal.

Mr. Neal: Can the hon. Gentleman be a little more specific? Do we gather from what he has said that the Government intend to give no priority to the use of coal but intend to encourage the use of other forms of energy?

Sir I. Horobin: I do not think that I can embark on a statement of general fuel policy in an answer to a supplementary question.

Manpower

Mr. Neal: asked the Paymaster-General what estimate he has made of the manpower requirements of the coal industry for the remaining period of 1959.

Sir I. Horobin: The National Coal Board endeavours to keep manpower in balance with coal requirements, but it is impossible at this date to give a firm estimate.

Mr. Neal: Is the Parliamentary Secretary making the confession that there is no budget for manpower for the year? Is he aware of the uneasiness in the coalfields? Can he tell the House how many miners will lose their jobs during 1959?

Sir I. Horobin: If the hon. Member tables a Question on that point I might be able to attempt to guess, but both sides of the House are always at variance on the question of how we can usefully endeavour to decide months or even years ahead exactly what will happen. The National Coal Board has its own ideas and is doing its best to avoid unemployment in the coalfields, and the Government are backing it up, but it is impossible to give an exact figure.

Mr. Neal: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that until his Government came to power manpower budgets were always made for the coal industry?

Sir I. Horobin: That is one of the reasons why we do not go on doing it.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that this month's manpower figure of 681,000 in the coalfields is 69,000 higher than the estimate made by the National Coal Board in its "Plan for Coal" in 1950 of the manpower applicable today?

Sir I. Horobin: Broadly speaking, my hon. Friend is right; but, what is more important, there are fewer men mining more coal.

Undistributed Stocks

Mr. Palmer: asked the Paymaster-General if he will make a statement on the present level of undistributed coal stocks.

Sir I. Horobin: Undistributed stocks of coal at 7th March were just under 20 million tons.

Mr. Palmer: Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain why, in view of the present great surplus of coal, the Government appear to take a rather distant, indifferent attitude in marked contrast to their attitude on home-produced food?

Sir I. Horobin: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by a distant attitude. It seems to me that the Government have taken a very sensible view, namely, that provided the coal industry is adjusting itself to changed conditions it is reasonable that the Government, who are its bankers, should finance these stocks rather than put a lot more miners out of work.

Exports

Mr. Palmer: asked the Paymaster-General if he will make a statement on the prospects for the export trade in coal.

Sir I. Horobin: Until economic activity in Western Europe revives, the prospects are not very favourable. But the National Coal Board and the coal exporters have the full co-operation of Her Majesty's Government in its efforts to expand this trade.

Mr. Palmer: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the Government have considered the possibility of special reciprocal trading arrangements, involving British coal, with selected countries?

Sir I. Horobin: That would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware of the view which has been put forward that markets for high quality anthracite coal would still be available if it were in good quantity? Does he know whether the National Coal Board has considered this aspect?

Sir I. Horobin: Indeed, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the anthracite supply position is one of the sections of the coal industry where supplies for the home market are still very tight.

Mr. Gower: In that case, can my hon. Friend say whether the National Coal Board is reconsidering the plan which it announced for certain anthracite mines in South Wales?

Sir I. Horobin: No, because, though supplies are tight, there is a limit to which the Coal Board, which is already making heavy losses, can continue to get coal and sell it at such a heavy loss, as is the case in this small part of the anthracite supply of this country.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while the supply of anthracite is tight, this is a section of the coal industry in which many men are unemployed for whom there is no other work and we shall, therefore, lose them? Will the hon. Gentleman, therefore, take steps to ensure that the two new pits which are being sunk are pressed forward as quickly as possible, otherwise the supply of anthracite will become even more tight, because when the mines become available experienced anthracite miners—and I speak as one of them—will not be available to work in the pits.

Sir I. Horobin: Broadly speaking, the Government are in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, but the general policy is to close uneconomic pits and press forward with economic ones.

Western Europe

Mr. Palmer: asked the Paymaster-General if the Government will open discussions with the European Coal and Steel Community and the appropriate American authorities on the present coal situation in Western Europe.

Sir I. Horobin: Through the Council of Association with the High Authority we are in consultation on the present situation in Western Europe and their relations with other countries.

Mr. Palmer: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it can be brought home to the American Government that a relatively trifling trading adjustment on their part would make a tremendous difference to the present coal recession in Western Europe?

Sir I. Horobin: The position is that we have, as it were, no locus in trade relations between America and countries in Western Europe which are importing under ordinary commercial contracts. We have no right to interfere in the matter, but we have made and are making our views very clearly known to the High


Authority, which is the body set up for co-ordinating the coal policies, including import policies, of much of Western Europe.

Mr. Palmer: The Parliamentary Secretary will surely agree that the American Government would have some influence on American traders in the matter of contracts.

Sir I. Horobin: The question is whether we should have any influence with the American Government—whether it is not better to do it, as we are doing it, through the High Authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Liquid Methane

Mr. Neal: asked the Paymaster-General if he has yet given any general direction to indicate which area gas boards will pioneer the use of liquid methane.

Sir I. Horobin: No, Sir.

Mr. Neal: That is a very brief answer. Must it be assumed that the area boards which will pioneer the use of methane will be those nearest to the port facilities, and, if so, is any arrangement contemplated whereby the inland area boards will be able to share the reduction in the price of gas which will be available?

Sir I. Horobin: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the present work is being done by the North Thames Gas Board. Several more trips of this very interesting ship will be required before we can get down to an economic calculation. I am not making a promise, but perhaps in a few months' time we shall be in a position to say more on the matter. At the moment, however, the ship has been here only once. We are examining the figures, but it is impossible to be very explicit.

Nationalised Industries (Liaison)

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Paymaster-General what general directions he has given with a view to bringing closer liaison between the National Coal Board, the Central Electricity Authority and the Gas Council.

Sir I. Horobin: None, Sir.

Mr. Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Answers are very evasive? Leaders in the National Coal Board and the electricity and gas industries are far from satisfied with the present position. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that more should be done to give a definite lead, particularly to the National Coal Board?

Sir I. Horobin: I do not know how far the hon. Gentleman is authorised by the National Coal Board to make that statement. I can only say that relations between the Coal Board and the Ministry since I have been at the Ministry have certainly not deteriorated and are very close indeed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Surplus Boots

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Supply what progress has been made in disposing of the 1,250,000 pairs of surplus boots from the War Department.

Mr. Mason: asked the Minister of Supply whether he has yet made any progress in the sales abroad of the 1,250,000 spare pairs of Army boots.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. W. J. Taylor): Forms of tender for approximately 650,000 pairs are now being issued for return on 20th April.

Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people are deeply disturbed by the tremendous waste of public money, of which this is a glaring example? Can he state when information will be available so that we may know how much public money is being lost in this instance without anyone getting into trouble?

Mr. Taylor: My right hon. Friend is not responsible for the surpluses thrown up by the Service Departments. In answer to the latter part of the supplementary question, these boots were ordered a very long time ago and have been held in stock for a great length of time. It is almost impossible now to say who ordered them, or indeed, I should imagine, what was paid for them.

Mr. Mason: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much longer the Ministry will carry the rest of this surplus stock? There


has obviously been a blunder in the purchase and a lack of initiative in getting rid of these boots, the Ministry having held them for over 12 months. If the Ministry cannot sell boots, how will it be able to sell redundant War Office mansions which are suffering from dry rot?

Mr. Taylor: The full quantity has not been declared to the Ministry of Supply by the Service Department concerned. Our first aim is to clear the depots as they become due for clearance.

Fog Dispersal

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Supply what steps he is taking to further the development of the system of fog dispersal, originally developed on his behalf at the Battersea College of Technology.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: None, Sir. The method of fog dispersal investigated at Battersea College did not prove sufficiently promising to justify further development.

Mr. Albu: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would ask his right hon. Friend to consult the Secretary of State for Air, who last week, in reply to a Question dealing with a very similar method of fog dispersal, said that it was a very promising idea. Why is it that there appears to be no co-ordination between the two Departments in this very important matter?

Mr. Taylor: It is not a question of co-ordination between two Departments but merely a question of difference of opinion between the scientists involved. The work at Battersea was based on the idea that fog might be dispersed by accelerating the rate of coalescence and precipitation of the minute drops by spraying the surface with an active agent and using an aeroplane for that purpose. If the hon. Member has anything to contribute which will help my Department in solving this difficult problem, I shall be very glad to hear it.

Mr. Mason: More fog.

Royal Ordnance Factory, Swynnerton

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Supply if he is now in a position to make a further statement about the disposal of

the Royal Ordnance factory at Swynnerton.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: No, Sir. Proposals for the future use of the site are still being considered by the county council.

Mr. Swingler: Is anybody in the hon. Gentleman's Department taking any action in the matter? Is he aware that his Department has been responsible for throwing hundreds of workers out of work without providing any alternative employment and that he has, therefore, a responsibility for the high level of unemployment in the area and that it is time that somebody in his Department got on with this job?

Mr. Taylor: I do not accept what the hon. Member says about my Department throwing people out of work. I understand that most people employed in this factory have now obtained alternative employment. This is a difficult matter. There is an area of two square miles involved here and responsibility for development of the site devolves upon the planning authority which, in this case, is Stafford County Council. I can assure the hon. Member that my Department is doing everything it possibly can to come to a satisfactory solution of the matter.

Mr. Beswick: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that these matters are left to the county council? Surely the use of this factory was considered with other Departments before the decision was taken?

Mr. Taylor: That is true. We are in constant consultation with the Board of Trade on this matter.

Aircraft

Mr. Mason: asked the Minister of Supply how many aircraft are now being held by his Department; to what extent they are being fully utilised; and how far he visualises a rundown in the number held during the current year.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: There are 411 aircraft held by the Ministry of Supply excluding those awaiting disposal. These aircraft are fully utilised although there are inevitably occasional gaps between the use of an aircraft for one task and another. I do not foresee any significant rundown during the current year.

Mr. Mason: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of these aircraft are in


storage and are not being used at all; secondly, what methods are adopted by his Department suitably to dispose of redundant aircraft with the smallest loss of public money?

Mr. Taylor: I do not believe any aircraft are held in storage. There is, as I have said in the Answer I have just given, a slight delay between the use of aircraft for one task and another. In the last two years there has been a reduction in the holding of more than 150 aircraft of all types. These aircraft are used for research and development. They are needed as the tools with which my Department does its job and there is no real discernible waste.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that had the Conservative Government not cancelled the several hundred Canberra bombers ordered by the Labour Government the position today would have been even more difficult?

Mr. Taylor: That is true.

Aircraft Projects

Mr. Mason: asked the Minister of Supply, in view of the financial losses suffered by his Department on recent research and development of aero-engines, airframes, the Sea Vixen and the development of a new radar scanner, much of which was incurred by underestimating the costs of these projects, what steps he is taking to ensure that such waste of public moneys will not occur in the future.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: My right hon. Friend is very conscious of the importance of improving standards of estimating in what is a very difficult field; and he is constantly seeking ways of doing so. On the other hand, the hon. Member should not assume that an excess of final cost over first estimate necessarily indicates waste or loss.

Mr. Mason: Recognising the fact that obviously a lot of benefit will accrue to the people concerned from the research being done, and in view of the fact that we have lost a lot of money on research and development projects which have been brought to fruition at tremendous cost on which we have not been able to get the outlay back again, does the hon. Gentleman not really view this with concern? Is he not aware that because of this waste on redundant mansions for

the War Office and the development of aero-engines and all the items which the Minister is responsible for selling, his Department qualifies to be called the Department of Waste, not of Supply?

Mr. Taylor: I do not accept that at all. There is no single cause for inaccurate estimating to which the Question refers and, consequently, there is no single remedy. The administrative procedures of the Department are always under scrutiny with a view to improving techniques for estimating. We try to analyse precisely what a particular project entails and to bring more informed critical judgments to bear on the estimate of cost of each stage.

Aero-Engines (Contracts)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply (1) to what extent the form of contract commonly agreed by his Department for the development of an aero-engine includes a penalty clause to be applied when the manufacturers' estimates and calculations are inaccurate or incomplete;
(2) if he will make a statement on his future policy with regard to development contracts for aero-engines;
(3) to what extent, since the losses of some millions of pounds on the Bristol Proteus I aero-engine and the Bristol Brabazon aircraft, the technical staff of his Department has been strengthened for the more effective checking of estimates and calculations submitted to him by the manufacturers engaged on development contracts

Mr. W. J. Taylor: Development contracts for aero engines do not include a penalty clause because the work to be done by its very nature renders initial estimates and calculations liable to a wide margin of error. This is inevitable when embarking on a new development which will take some years to complete and for which success, in its original conception, cannot be guaranteed. There has been some strengthening of the technical staff: but improvement in checking estimates and calculations depends more on improvement of techniques of estimating and the effort to this end has been increased.
It is our policy to include in development contracts provisions designed to enable the Department to keep a close


watch on rises in the cost, and the causes of them, to review regularly the value of the project and to ensure that the Department is not liable for any increase over the estimate unless it has been specifically approved.

Mr. Beswick: May I put three questions to the Parliamentary Secretary, as he has answered three Questions of mine together? Firstly, when we have a case such as the RA29, where the Comptroller and Auditor General points out that the company deliberately withheld certain information about research costs and, in fact, gave only a two-year estimate instead of a four-year estimate, is there no question of revising the money to be paid to such a firm? Is it not a little odd that there should be no penalty clause since, as the Comptroller and Auditor General points out, the Ministry itself would be under a liability to pay substantial damages if it were to fall down on its contract?
Finally, can the Parliamentary Secretary say what action is being taken following the Second Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, 1956–57, in which, in paragraph 122, it said:
Your Committee consider that the whole basis of the Research and Development contract urgently needs reconsideration".
Are we to take it from the hon. Gentleman's reply that no consideration has been given to that at all?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot reply to a question which relates to specific projects which are at present under consideration by the Public Accounts Committee. It would not be in accordance with the practice of this House for me to comment on that until the Committee makes its Report.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that I was quoting not from the last Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General but from the Report of the Select Committee which considered identical criticisms and complaints of the present Comptroller and Auditor General's respected predecessor? May I ask him again, has any action at all been taken consequent upon the criticism made by the Select Committee in 1956?

Mr. Taylor: I am aware of that. It does not alter the substance of my previous reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Cancer

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health what has been the response from local authorities to his request to them to consider taking appropriate action, as part of their health education arrangements, to make it known that cancer can often be cured if it is diagnosed and treated in its early stages.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): In response to the circular sent out in 1953, 92 local health authorities applied for copies of the model scheme of cancer education prepared by the Central Council for Health Education. Considerable quantities of suitable publicity material have been bought from the Council and other organisations for local distribution.

Mr. Johnson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not think that is a rather disappointingly low figure of local authorities applying? Can he do anything further to stimulate their interest?

Mr. Walker-Smith: It is a very considerable proportion, as my hon. Friend will be aware. I certainly hope we can increase the proportion, and, no doubt, these constructive exchanges between us today will help to that end.

Nurses and Midwives (Pay)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on new proposals for the pay of nurses and midwives.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, Sir. Revised salaries for all the main grades in general, mental and maternity hospitals were agreed by the Whitley Council last week and should greatly improve the attraction of nursing and midwifery as a career. The agreement provides increases ranging from £12 to £29 in the case of student nurses, £54 to £87 in the case of staff nurses and midwives and £105 to £163 in the case of ward sisters and midwifery sisters. Matrons of non-training hospitals will receive increases ranging from £101 to £195 and matrons of nurse training schools increases ranging from £129 to £237. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have approved the proposals with effect from 1st March, 1959. The Whitley Council are now considering the grades not covered by this agreement.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement, may I ask whether he is aware that his approval of this decision will cause a good deal of satisfaction among those concerned with the welfare of nurses and midwives?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. That may well be the case.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why it is that whenever nurses have increases in pay, which are very welcome on all sides of the House, they almost automatically have to pay an increase in lodging expenses, which causes great irritation to them? I speak as the husband of one of them. May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether this increase will do anything to allay the anxiety of the Royal College of Nursing, which pointed out some time ago that nurses were emigrating to Australia, America and Canada in increasing numbers because of the great disparity in their pay?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I should regret anything which would inconvenience or dislocate the hon. Member's domestic economy, but the short answer is that these charges are, generally speaking, below the economic charge and therefore it is only reasonable that as the pay goes up so should the charges in respect of board and lodging. I would remind the House that these have been agreed by the Whitley Council.

Dr. Summerskill: This has happened so often. We all welcome these increases in charges to these people. [Laughter.] I am sure Mr. Speaker will forgive me for what is a Freudian lapse. I should, of course, have said "pay." Will the Minister keep in mind that every time these excellent nurses and midwives are given an increase it is vitiated by this increase in the charge for accommodation? Surely, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says does not entirely satisfy us, because this increase was called for without any reduction in consequence of an increased charge for accommodation.

Mr. Walker-Smith: It is far from true that these increases are vitiated. On the contrary, they represent a very substantial advantage right across the board.

Dame Irene Ward: Whilst also thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for this announcement, which will give very great pleasure, may I ask whether he will be good enough to have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask him whether there can be a pensions increase Act for retired nurses and midwives, who have served this country so faithfully and well and whose services require to be recognised because their cost of living has gone up and they have had nothing in respect of it?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sure that my right hon. Friend, in common with all my right hon. Friends, takes a very careful note of everything that my hon. Friend says.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Regional Needs

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health what standards are now used for calculating the needs of an area for acute, chronic and maternity hospital beds per 1,000 of the population.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think that this can be decided by rule of thumb, but only by the needs of the area concerned. It is, in the first place, for hospital boards to explain to me, in connection with any building project, the beds they consider necessary to meet the needs of the area.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Whilst welcoming the Minister's statement, may I ask whether he is aware that in certain regions there is some anxiety and that figures are quoted which suggest a very low provision of bed accommodation in those areas?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sorry that there should be these anxieties in any region. I hope that careful and objective study of the facts will help to dispel them.

Aspirin

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Health in view of the need to reduce expenditure on drugs, what directions he has given to hospital authorities on purchases of patented varieties of aspirin; and in what circumstances the patented varieties are administered to patients instead of ordinary aspirin.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I assume the hon. Member refers to proprietary forms of aspirin in respect of which no directions have been given to hospitals. Hospital


medical staff are free to prescribe particular varieties of drugs if they think them necessary on clinical grounds, and I have no information about the use of proprietary forms of aspirin in these circumstances.

Mr. Rankin: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any idea of the difference in cost between these patented varieties of aspirin and aspirin itself? Is he aware that on television one of the patented varieties is widely advertised at six tablets for 6d. as against 24 tablets of aspirin for 4d.? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not think, in view of the fact that they are prescribed, that he should inquire into that matter in relation to the instructions given to the ordinary doctor and in order to protect the ordinary public?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Guidance has been issued, of course, to hospital medical staff asking them to avoid the use of expensive proprietary preparations where alternatives exist, and asking them not in general to prescribe preparations which are advertised direct to the public. Both these forms of guidance should avoid the use of expensive proprietaries where there is any suitable standard alternative. I am quite prepared to consider whether the time has arisen for further reinforcement to be given by way of guidance.

Dr. Summerskill: Besides the giving of advice and guidance, are the prescriptions examined and, in consequence, the doctor communicated with in the same way as prescriptions are examined in general practice?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Obviously not in the same way. As the right hon. Lady knows, through the regional machinery we have methods of seeking to enforce economy, but clearly we could not have precisely the same machinery for what are two different sets of circumstances.

Psychiatric Social Workers

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of qualified psychiatric social workers employed in the United Kingdom, the proportions employed by hospital and local health authorities, respectively, and the number employed in each region in relation to population.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the available information which relates to the numbers employed by hospital authorities in England and Wales. I regret that corresponding figures for local health authorities are not readily available.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that if the figures which he gave fully last week for the Midland counties are anything to judge by, these figures will show a shockingly inadequate service? Is it the aim of his Ministry to develop a psychiatric social service in the country? Is he aware that at present it does not exist in large areas? If the present legislation is not to be a dead-letter on this subject, what superhuman efforts are being made by his Ministry to train and qualify people for this work?

Mr. Walker-Smith: There is certainly a need for more psychiatric social workers, and I wholly endorse what the hon. Member has said about the importance of this service. As to the methods about which he asks me, there is a special scheme of training allowances for students, by which we hope to assist recruitment.

Following is the information:


NUMBERS OF QUALIFIED PSYCHIATRIC SOCIAL WORKERS EMPLOYED BY HOSPITAL AUTHORITIES


Region
Number of Qualified Psychiatric Social Workers
Estimated population (mid-1957)


Full-time
Part-time


Newcastle
…
4
1
2,956,000


Leeds
…
5
—
3,069,000


Sheffield
…
1
—
4,261,000


East Anglia
…
7
1
1,496,000


N.W. Metropolitan
…
50
12
3,975,000


N.E. Metropolitan
…
18*
2
3,123,000


S.E. Metropolitan
…
42*
11*
3,241,000


S.W. Metropolitan
…
38
3
4,744,000


Oxford
…
7
3
1,522,000


Southwestern
…
7
3
2,805,000


Wales
…
7
—
2,611,000


Birmingham
…
11
5
4,578,000


Manchester
…
9
3
4,385,000


Liverpool
…
9
2
2,141,000

Note.*These figures include some unqualified workers.

Scunthorpe

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked tae Minister of Health if he is aware that patients in pain in Scunthorpe are kept waiting for a month before waiting for an appointment with an orthopaedic consultant; and what steps he will take to prevent this continuing.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): I am aware that the normal waiting time is about a month, but urgent cases can be seen without delay. If the hon. and learned Member will let me have details of any cases where patients in pain are having to wait I will be glad to look into them.

Mr. Mallalieu: Whilst I am very grateful for that reply, will not the Parliamentary Secretary try to speed up matters in this fast-growing town by the appointment of additional registrars or some such experts in the orthopaedic department?

Mr. Thompson: If I thought that that would help I would certainly give serious consideration to it, but if a general practitioner refers the case as urgent the patient is seen without delay. Alternatively, a patient in pain can be seen at once by the casualty department.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Minister of Health when he expects the work on the reorganisation of the hospitals in Scunthorpe to be finished.

Mr. R. Thompson: If all goes well, in 1963.

Mr. Mallalieu: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been no start as yet? Was not a start promised a year ago, and cannot some date earlier than 1963 be spoken about?

Mr. Thompson: I appreciate the hon. and learned Member's very proper concern with this matter. The reorganisation of which he speaks depends upon a major scheme now being planned for the development of Scunthorpe and District War Memorial Hospital. It is a £640,000 scheme and will include 103 more beds, additional outpatients', X-ray, pathology, physiotherapy and operating theatre accommodation, and we shall press on with it as fast as we can.

NYASALAND (WHITE PAPER)

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I wish to inform the House that I have received a despatch from the Governor of Nyasaland giving details of the situation in the Protectorate leading up to the declaration of the state of emergency and of subsequent events.
This is being published as a White Paper, copies of which will be available in the Vote Office at 4 p.m. today.

Mr. Gaitskell: Naturally, we shall wish to study the White Paper before making any comment on it. It may be that afterwards we shall have to raise the matter in the House.

CENTRAL LAND BOARD (DISSOLUTION)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a short statement.
In moving the Central Land Board (Dissolution and Transfer of Functions) Order, 1959, on Thursday, 19th March, I said, in good faith:
None of the officials of the Central Land Board will in any way suffer any diminution of salary or rights."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1959; Vol. 602, c. 764.]
I have since found that this is not so. It has proved impossible to offer work in the same grade to every official whose work has disappeared, though this has been done in all but two, or possibly three, cases.
I wish to express my regret to the House.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN

Commander Anthony Tosswill Courtney, O.B.E., for Harrow, East.

Stanley Raymond McMaster, esquire, for Belfast, East.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Town and Country Planning Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 2, page 2, lines 34 and 35; Clause 32, page 46, line 36; Clause 32, page 47, line 4; Clause 32, page 48, lines 27, 32, 40, and 45; Clause 32, page 49, line 5; Clause 37, page 51, lines 25, 34, and 45; Clause 37, page 52, line 3; and the Title, standing on the Notice Paper in the names of Mr. Henry Brooke and Mr. Niall Macpherson; in respect of the Amendments to Schedule 2, page 63, lines 43 and 47, and page 64, line 26, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Henry Brooke; in respect of the Amendments to Clause 8, page 13, line 35; Clause 15, page 20, line 41; Clause 15, page 21, line 1 and Schedule 2, page 66, lines 1, 5, 36, and 38, and lines 39 and 40, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Niall Macpherson: and in respect of the new Clause (Recent entry under longstanding notice to treat) standing on the notice paper in the names of Mr. Henry Brooke and Mr. Niall Macpherson.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Before calling on the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), may I say that the only Amendment to the Motion in his name which I have not selected is that to Clause 12, page 15, line 12. Also, I have not selected the Amendments in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) to Clause 1, page 2, line 10, and Clause 32, page 47, line 4.

Question amended, by adding, at the end
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 3, page 4, line 13 and page 5, line 25, Clause 8, page 11, lines 10 and 14, Clause 42, page 55, line 18, and the new Clauses (Global Assessments), (Assumptions in assessing compensation) and (Increase of certain Exchequer grants), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Mitchison".—[Mr. Mitchison.]
and:
and in respect of the new Clauses (Inclusion of adjoining land in assessment for compensation), (Right to compensation in respect of planning decisions relating to land held on charitable trusts) and (Compensation in respect of unfit houses), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Page; the Amendments to Clause 8, page 13, line 14 and Schedule 2, page 64, line 25, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley; the Amendments to Clause 15, page 19, line 46.

page 20, lines 1 and 4, Clause 32, page 47, lines 9, 23 and 33 and page 48, lines 3 and 5, and the new Clause (Assumptions in respect of compensation for dwelling-houses on basis of site value), standing on the notice Paper in the name of Mr. Corfield; and the Amendment to Schedule 2, page 64, line 4, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Sir Eric Errington".—[Mr. Page.]
and:
and in respect of the Amendment to Schedule 2, page 63, line 36, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Pitman".—[Mr. Pitman.]

and, as amended, agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 2.—(GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AS TO PLANNING PERMISSION.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, to leave out "by the acquiring authority".
If it would suit the convenience of the Committee, I suggest that this Amendment should be discussed with the immediate subsequent Amendment, to line 35, after "proposals", to insert "of the acquiring authority".
As hon. Members know, subsection (2) of Clause 2 at present applies where the relevant interest is being acquired for purposes which involve the carrying out by the acquiring authority of proposals for development. It may well happen, however, that an authority may buy land for the purpose of making it available to some other body or person to carry out the development. This is especially true of a local authority. For example, a local authority might purchase land and proceed to make it available for transforming into an industrial estate on which factories might be built. In other words, the proposals for development are those of the acquiring authority, but the actual execution might rest with some other body.
These two Amendments, which, incidentally, were suggested to my right hon. Friend by the Law Society, have the effect of making subsection (2) of this Clause apply where the relevant interest is to be acquired for purposes which involve the carrying out of the proposals of the acquiring authority but not necessarily by the acquiring authority.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 35, after "proposals", insert "of the acquiring authority".—[Mr. Bevins.]

Motion, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I would mention, Sir Charles, that there is an Amendment for a later stage of the Bill to leave out Clause 2. It arises in connection with the Amendments to the next Clause. I merely mention it now so that it shall not be assumed that we are waiving any rights in the matter.

The Chairman: That is on the Report stage. I think that that Amendment has not been selected.

Mr. Mitchison: I think that the position, Sir Charles, is that unless our next Amendments are carried it will not arise.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(SPECIAL ASSUMPTIONS AS TO PLANNING PERMISSION IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN LAND COMPRISED IN DEVELOPMENT PLANS.)

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 42.

The Chairman: It will probably be for the convenience of the Committee to consider, at the same time, the next Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman, in page 5, line 25, to leave Out,
subsection (2), subsection (3), or subsection (4) of".
and the proposed new Clause, "Assumptions in assessing compensation", also in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Mitchison: Yes, Sir Charles.
The two Amendments, of which the second is nothing but drafting, are preparatory to the proposed new Clause. I will explain what we have in mind. The Clause substitutes the judgment of a reasonable valuer for a large number of assumptions which are made in the Bill. In consequence, those assumptions would he made unnecessarily, and the whole of Clause 2 and Clause 3 down to the end

of subsection (3) would become unnecessary. Accordingly, we are proposing to omit the whole of Clause 2 and the first three subsections of Clause 3 and to substitute for them the proposed new Clause.
The proposed Clause reads:
For the purpose of assessing compensation in respect of a compulsory acquisition such assumptions shall be made as would be made by a reasonable valuer, having regard (among other matters) to any planning permissions previously granted, to any conditions attached to such planning permissions, to any planning permissions refused, to the current development plan and to local conditions:
Then there is this proviso:
Provided that sections three and eight of this Act shall apply to the special circumstances mentioned in those sections.
The special circumstances are with regard to what would remain of Clause 3 after the changes which we propose, the special circumstances of land subject to comprehensive development. Hon. Members will remember that there are provisions in relation to land of that kind for treating it as a block of land and not making planning permission dependent on the particular future of a small piece of land, that is to say, it will not matter within an area of comprehensive development whether a road goes over one's piece of land or over someone else's, and similarly in relation to some more profitable change than that.
The second set of special cases are in Clause 8. They refer to areas of land which, again, are treated as a whole, though for rather different reasons, including, for instance, the whole of a new town or land acquired for town development purposes.
3.45 p.m.
Subject to those two special cases, what we suggest is that the assumptions proposed in the Bill are far too complicated, that whatever is put into the Bill will not, in practice, be read by many of those concerned and in many cases not understood even by those who read. I relate those remarks not merely to professional valuers, of whom I shall have something much more polite to say in a minute, but to those with whom we are principally concerned—the people whose property will be acquired and the acquiring authorities, their officers and members. In short, we say that the Bill is at present an exercise in drafting ingenuity which is as tortuous as it is impracticable in relation to many of these assumptions.
We have done our best in long discussions in Committee—it was this part of the Bill which took up most of our time—to get the matter right here and there, but the more we went on with it the more I felt that what we were doing all the time was to try to translate into formal language matters which any reasonable valuer would take up for himself and which he would have decided if, for instance, the sale had been between two private individuals and it had not been a compulsory sale at all.
I proceed to look for a moment at what it is that we propose should be left out. If we look at Clause 2, the first question arises under subsection (2) and is, as we saw in the discussion which took place just now, about the assumptions to be made when land is acquired by an acquiring authority for certain purposes and, very naturally and properly, it is assumed that planning permission would be available for those purposes, if, indeed, it had not already been obtained.
As to the rest of the Clause, subsection (3) is a minor matter which would go, broadly speaking, with the previous subsection. Subsection (4) relates to planning refusal. I do not think that subsections (5) and (6) and the Scottish application subsection raise any new question for these purposes, though I shall have to say something in a moment about the certificate procedure mentioned in subsection (5).
If we turn to Clause 3, we come to what is described as
Special assumptions as to planning permission in respect of certain land comprised in development plans.
Broadly speaking—I put it only broadly at this stage—the assumption is that the land would be used in accordance with the development plan. That is an assumption which any reasonable valuer would make for himself. When we look at this part of the Bill—a great deal of discussion has taken place about it and a great deal of importance has been attached to it—I suggest that at the end of the day in the vast majority of cases we are doing no more than telling a reasonable valuer to do what he would do anyhow. However, the trouble about telling people things in a Statute is that they consider that that which is in the Statute is of overriding importance.
The Minister has tabled an Amendment as to the way in which these assumptions should be treated, which I will not attempt to deal with at this stage. I would, however, point out that he has found it necessary to do that, and to do it for two broad purposes. His first purpose is to make it perfectly clear that these assumptions are intended by the Bill to be cumulative; that is to say, the fact that one of them is made sets no limit on the number of additional assumptions that are to be made.
Secondly, they are not intended to be exclusive from his point of view. The position is that in certain cases the reasonable valuer is left to add to those assumptions and make his choice from the assumptions whcih apply, and his choice will be made in relation to the probability that this, that, or the other assumption will or will not result in planning permission being applied for or used. That is a matter he would have to consider as between private persons, and, in spite of what looks like fairly comprehensive language, when we come to the meat of the matter we find that we are really as far off as if we had said nothing about it. Moreover, what has been said has tended to obscure a number of things not said.
The question every valuer will have to consider is the effective probability of these assumed planning permissions ever becoming—or that they have become—of any practical application if the acquiring authority does not step in. I listened carefully to what was said and the more I listened the more I felt that by spinning out this comprehensive and tortuous catalogue the Government were really doing nothing but obscuring what had been left out and adding nothing substantial to what the valuer would take into account in any event.
The guiding thing in the majority of cases will be the development plan. We all have in mind that we are not at the moment considering the value of the land as it is, but merely its prospective development value, that which has to be related to planning permissions. Within that limited field, in most cases the development plan would provide an indication, sometimes a conclusive indication. Clause 3 (1) deals with that type of case. It may in other cases provide a more general indication and one will have to choose


between one possibility and another. If for instance, the development plan schedules the land for industrial or residential development, what weight will be given to those factors?
In dealing with that question, there is the obvious question of judgment. In most of these cases the valuer would know which was the more likely of the two. He would know what was in the area and the way it was developing generally with regard to local conditions, and so on.
There is machinery in the Bill for providing, where necessary, for reference to the planning authority, or in some cases to the Minister, to decide as between one alternative and another. That is simplifying the problem a little and it may be that all one can say is that one is more probable than the other. Without going into the merits or details of what appears as Clause 4, the machinery is there and there is no reason why it should not be used for questions of that sort. Indeed, though I am not discussing it at the moment, we have an Amendment to make rather wider use, though not an essentially different one, of that machinery.
There is one other type of case where the development plan would break down as a guide. That is where it shows no development of the land. It is what the experts call "white land". In a case of that kind the same considerations would apply. The valuer would have a good idea, or, if he did not, he could use the certificate machinery for the purpose. That is the broad line of what we propose.
Without wanting to develop the matter at any great length, I realise that this involves a very considerable change in this part of the Bill. Nobody can foretell how this will turn out financially. It is possible that in one case it would work in one direction and, in another case, in the other. In those circumstances, one has to go back to the main object of this part of the Bill, which is to get the open market value.
The object to be achieved is that laid down in the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919:
The amount which the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller might be expected to realise".
We on this side of the Committee have always had sympathy with that object,

though I am bound to say that our sympathy became a little qualified after being told by the Parliamentary Secretary that very few owner-occupiers would be affected by the Bill. Be that as it may, and it does not arise at the moment, that is the object of the Bill.
Surely the object of the Bill is far more likely to be realised by leaving a great deal more to the judgment and experience of the valuer than the Bill leaves at present. At the end of the day an experienced valuer would read through these parts of the Bill and say, "Why have they put in all this? It must be for some object. What is the object? The object must be that I should do something different from what I should do anyhow".
Under the Amendment, the valuer will have to have regard to two things which are mentioned in this part of the Bill, and, having done that, to form his judgment as a reasonable expert. That kind of language tallies with the principal rule in the 1919 Act and with the intention of the Government as expressed in the White Paper.
I hope that the Government will have the courage, even at this comparatively late stage of the Bill, to throw overboard a set of elaborate provisions which do no particular good and which, if they are to have any effect at all, will bewilder sonic valuers and lead others into errors by making them suppose that they must depart from what they would normally do and which will be unintelligible to the people concerned and to the local authorities concerned with acquiring land.
If legislation of this kind is really intended to do what is fair, and to provide an open market value, it is a serious vice if it can be done only by a series of extremely intricate and tortuous rules, as the Government at first said. It makes one feel that if that is the position there must be a catch in it somewhere and that the simple thing to do, when one wants to be fair, is to say that one will let a man have as compensation what is fair and what is a reasonable market value as assessed by a reasonable expert.
I hope that the Government will see that what we propose to leave out is a source of error, confusion and suspicion and that what we propose to put in is a simple matter which conforms with the practice as between private people and one which will be understood by all.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: This seems to be an appropriate Amendment on which to consider whether it is desirable to spell into the Bill, in what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) rightly described as elaborate and tortuous provisions, assumptions which the valuer would, in any event, be likely to consider if he were doing his job properly. I support the view of my hon. and learned Friend that it would be very much better to provide that the matter should be left to the determination of the notional reasonable valuer applying the assumptions that any such person would apply.
That would have the result of eliminating, for example, the provision that there should be an assumption that planning permission would be granted for the use for which the land was to be acquired. That is an assumption upon which the reasonable valuer would act without any encouragement or direction from the Bill. On that matter, it seems that our proposal is infinitely preferable to those of the Bill in which these matters are spelled out and the issue is complicated.
There then comes the question whether it is necessary to spell into the Bill the provision that there shall be an assumption that permission would be granted for a use which is zoned as a permitted use in the current development plan. There again, if the reasonable valuer of our conception applied his mind to this question, he would obviously proceed on the basis of a use in conformity with the assumption that the use zoned would be likely to be granted permission. In both those respects it would be better and would save time, trouble, doubt and expenditure if this concept of a reasonable valuer were introduced.
I draw attention to a specific point. If we introduce the concept of the valuer applying assumptions which are reasonable in all the circumstances, one of the assumptions upon which he would act would be the assumption that if an application for planning permission had been previously refused, that planning permission could not reasonably be expected to be granted for the development in respect of which it had already been refused.
A curious feature is that the Bill refers in only one place to the effect which a prior refusal of permission to develop should have upon assumptions to be made. It does that laboriously, gratuitously and ineffectively in respect of a refusal of a planning permission for Third Schedule development under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. That is an absurd position. If, for all that verbiage and complex language, there is substituted a general assumption which will comprise the assumption that where planning permission has been refused that planning permission is not likely to be granted, we take a sensible step forward and proceed upon a strictly practical basis which contrasts with the elaborate procedure which the Government have selected and adopted and which selects, out of all the refusals of planning permission which occur, only one for specific reference, namely, cases where there has been a refusal of planning permission for Third Schedule development under the 1947 Act.
That instance serves to underline and focus the point of our criticism. The moment we begin to elaborate a scheme of assumptions about planning permissions, we invite the risk of getting into difficulties, because we may omit some and give disproportionate emphasis to others which may be relatively unimportant. That is exactly what the Government are doing with the procedure now proposed.
There are series of lines in the Clauses which we want to delete and which are applied to Third Schedule development. In keeping alive the concept of Third Schedule development, the Government are complicating the matter simply for motives of ease. Development under the Third Schedule of the 1947 Act, for which permission was in all cases required, already included assumed planning permissions. It would be far better if the Bill proceeded on a sort of double basis; first, all true existing use value—and not existing use value with all the 1947 Act provisions incorporated—without planning assumptions, plus the assumptions introduced by the Bill; and, secondly, that in considering what those planning assumptions should be reference should be made to the assumptions which would be made by a valuer acting reasonably.
That would be better than to endeavour to spell out these assumptions in complicated and tortuous language with some of the consequential anomalies which I have endeavoured to indicate.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): So far as I can detect, there is no point of party philosophy dividing the two sides of the Committee on this Amendment. We are simply discussing what is the most practical way to proceed. The hon. and learned Members for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) have indicated their preference for the utmost simplicity in the first part of the process of trying to arrive at the market value, while retaining the complicated provisions for certain types of case, such as areas of comprehensive development. They think that would make things easier for everybody, and they are against the system of precise rules which the Government favour in the Clauses under discussion.
The question upon which the Committee must make up its mind is whether it is better to say, "Let us leave most of this vague, and rely upon everybody being reasonable, while having exact rules for a certain number of cases", or to say, as the Government do, "Let us have exact rules throughout, so that everybody may know where he stands"? It has been suggested that to have these exact rules will be bewildering. The reactions of which the Government have been aware since the Bill was published, from the professional organisations who will be very closely concerned in working the provisions of the Bill in relation to the question of valuation here discussed, have not shown that they would prefer a vaguer system. They know the problems of valuation, and they know the work that a valuer has to do. Generally speaking, the indications are that although they may not think that we have got the rules exactly right, nevertheless they believe that it is desirable to have a set of rules.
Their view coincides with the Government's view that uncertainty should be avoided wherever possible. We all know that in Income Tax matters, in relation to determining somebody's liability to tax, uncertainty is valueless. That is why, in the Income Tax Act, with 500 Sections

or more, we so provide that everybody can arrive at his exact tax liability, and can argue about it in the courts if need be.
It appears to the Government that if we were to accept the Amendment and the new Clause an enormous number of cases would be bound to go to the Lands Tribunal, and that the questions which would arise in case after case there would be exactly those questions which, in the Bill as it stands, are answered by the subsections which the Opposition seek to delete. Those questions would have to be decided one by one by the Lands Tribunal, and yet we should never get a set of rules. We might build up a kind of case law, provided by an examination of numerous decisions of the Lands Tribunal, but they would be decisions upon individual cases, and even at the end we should lack a general and precise set of rules such as the Bill provides.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering gave away part of the case that he was otherwise cogently making for the Amendment when he said that its effect would be sometimes to work one way and sometimes the other. He was arguing that, on balance, there would be no great change in the amount of money paid out by public authorities in compensation. But it is not merely a matter of keeping the total amount steady; it is also a question, equally important, of making sure that every person gets the appropriate amount he should get. All the time we are trying to answer the question: with what planning permission could this land be sold if it were not being sold compulsorily?
I submit that the detailed provisions which we have put into the early Clauses enable everybody concerned—the valuers, local authorities, the public and the Lands Tribunal—to see what rules have to be applied to individual cases. If we were to accept the Amendment, the decision would be left to a reasonable valuer. Valuers are very reasonable people, but I have no reason whatever to believe that they would prefer this matter to be dealt with in the way suggested. So far as I can judge, it is less rather than more likely that justice would be done to the individual owner if the Amendment were to be accepted.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Will the Minister be good enough to endeavour to justify a procedure setting up a series of assumptions about planning permission in which the only case in which the prior refusal of permission is allowed to play a part is a prior refusal of permission for Third Schedule development?

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Brooke: It is a question not of what applications for planning permission have been refused, but of what planning permissions have been granted. The reason why we have a reference to refusal in Clause 2 (4, a) is that subsection (3) states that
it shall be assumed that planning permission would be granted¨for development of any class specified in the Third Schedule…
That has to be qualified in subsection (4, a), which provides for the case when planning permission has been refused for some Third Schedule development. That is why it comes in in that way. In the normal case there is no need to refer to planning refusals, because we are concerned with planning permissions.
In view of something which the hon and learned Member for Kettering said I would repeat what I sought to say more than once in Standing Committee, namely, that some hon. Members seem to have an impression not only that planning permissions are cumulative, but that each planning permission adds something further to the value of the land. That is a fundamental error. A new planning permission, freshly granted, for some kind of development which is of less value than a development for which planning permission has already been granted, adds nothing at all to the value of the land; it simply extends the scope of the development that might take place. It is the permissions and not the values which are cumulative.
I was saying that the owner of the land is precluded by the fact of compulsory purchase from obtaining planning permissions which he might otherwise have obtained. In that case, one would think that the only fair thing to do would be to state clearly what permissions it should be assumed he would have obtained. So far as I can see, if the Amendment were accepted it would be quite impossible to arrive at that degree of certainty. The Amendment would greatly enlarge the

scope for dispute. That cannot serve a useful public purpose. In all these matters we must have as great a degree of precision as can be obtained. It suits nobody—except, possibly, lawyers—to extend the field of argument in compensation disputes. The Government submit that the purpose of any legislation dealing with compensation must be exactly the opposite of that—namely, to keep the field of dispute to a minimum.
That is the case which I put to the Committee. I have no doubt that we should not be assisting anybody—indeed, we should be making the task more difficult for everybody concerned, and not only for the valuers—if we were now to wipe clean the slate in regard to Clause 2 and the early subsections of Clause 3 and say, "Let us leave all that to a reasonable valuer". The valuers would not thank us, the public would not thank us, and I do not think the local authorities would thank us.

Mr. Mitchison: On several occasions I said that I thought the effect of the Amendment would be to introduce into this type of transaction an open market value that at present exists between the willing seller and the willing buyer, independent of compulsion. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me in what respects, if any, in the first place the provisions of the Bill and in the second place the provisions of the Amendment differ from the way in which that open market value is reached?

Mr. Brooke: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not expect me to explain his Amendment. That is up to him. The difficulty of arriving at market value, as between a willing buyer and a willing seller, unless we make detailed provisions of this kind, is that market value in the present condition of planning, depends on what planning permissions can be obtained. When there is no question of compulsory purchase, that is something that can be settled according to the planning permissions that have been granted. It can be settled according to the judgment of a willing buyer and a willing seller as to the planning permissions that might be granted.
In any event, the price, as between a willing buyer and a willing seller, is negotiated. In this case, there could be no question of ascertaining what planning


permissions are available, because, ex hypothesi, the land is being compulsorily purchased, and in a great many cases that would render fruitless any application for planning permission that had not otherwise been obtained.
It is for these reasons that the Government feel that they must, in these early Clauses of the Bill, lay down a set of rules which will guide valuers as to the kind of planning permissions they are to assume when land is being compulsorily purchased, and is not changing hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller.

Mr. E. G. Willis: From what the Minister has just said, it would appear that what we are doing is not deciding upon the basis of fair market value but upon what the Government consider to be the fair market value; not what is the fair market value as negotiated between a willing seller and a willing buyer.
That, apparently, is not now the aim of the Government, and, therefore, the Government must have something else in mind. That something else is specified in these most elaborate provisions in Clause 2 and the first part of Clause 3, and I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) when he says that we have to view this with suspicion.
I cannot see what other reasons there cart be for the Government wishing to tell the valuer all these things which he must bear in mind. I am surprised that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) has not come in with a defence of his profession on this Amendment.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: There will be lots of opportunities for me to come in later, which I intend to do.

Mr. Willis: We shall welcome the contribution of the hon. Gentleman. I hope he notices that the Government are treating his profession as nitwits who do not know how to value land.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Not at all.

Mr. Willis: The Government are saying to them, "You must do this", and are leaving no freedom at all for the hon. Gentleman's profession to use their own

discretion. They are, in fact, treating the members of that profession as if they are unable and unworthy to be trusted with this job. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman intervenes, he will fire a heavy broadside at his right hon. Friend on this point. I certainly would do so, if he were treating my profession in this way.
What was the first point of the right hon. Gentleman's argument? He told us that none of the professional organisations wanted this Amendment, and that, in fact, all the indications which he had had were that the professional organisations were in favour of these two pages of legal verbiage. I wonder whether the Solicitor-General for Scotland agrees with that because certainly the profession in Scotland are not in favour of all this verbiage, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows it better than anyone else. We have not heard from the Solicitor-General for Scotland yet, but I hope that we shall have a contribution from him on this aspect of the matter.
I do not know of any professional organisation in Scotland which has sent representations to Members of Parliament in favour of these provisions. I have received nothing, though I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends have done so. From what I can judge from the Press, in fact, the exact opposite is the case. Nobody in Scotland likes this; in fact, most are very violently opposed to it.
The second point of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that this would result in more cases going to the Lands Tribunal, or, in the case of Scotland, to the Official Arbiter. On what grounds must we assume that to be true? The right hon. Gentleman says that there will be a good field for legal argument, but surely there is always a big field for legal argument when we are faced with two and a half pages of provisions which nobody can understand?
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), during the Committee stage of the Bill, read out quite a number of phrases and words in Clause 2 that mean nothing at all. One has only to look at the Clause to see what a lot of words there are in it which do not mean anything, which could well be left out, and which are simply there for lawyers to argue about. That is all.
I do not see what is the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that this


could lead to a lot of cases going to the Lands Tribunal or the Official Arbiter. My own view is that it would mean fewer cases going there, because there would not be the same rules as are laid down here to argue about. When we get a lot of rules laid down, the parties can argue about each one of them and whether each one has in fact been properly applied. When it is left to the discretion of a person to take into account the factors which he feels affect the market value of land, it seems to me that the field of argument is not quite so large. I might be wrong about that, but I am not impressed by the second point which the right hon. Gentleman made.
Then the right hon. Gentleman came to the third point. He said that we assume that the valuer would do what was reasonable. Why should we not assume that? The valuer has been doing it for years, and he is doing it every day. Why should we not assume that he will continue to do it? Apparently, the Government seem to think—and this is why I am surprised that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns did not intervene—that valuers are most unreasonable, will act most unjustly and do not know anything about their job. We on this side of the Committee are much more kindly disposed to them. We trust our fellow-men to a much greater extent, and, while we may disagree with some of their views, we think that professional men of this character do their job quite well.
I am sure that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns will intervene to tell us how, in the pleasant little tea parties held in the valuer's office to determine the value of land, these cosy, comfortable gatherings of which he told us during the Committee stage, discussions took place in the most friendly circumstances, when all the considerations are borne in mind. The hon. Gentleman said something very similar to that during the Committee stage of the Bill, when he was at great pains to tell us that valuers would take all these considerations into account. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree to that. He said they would weigh up all these things and come to a decision. I do not disagree with him, but that is not what the Government think. The Government think something precisely the opposite. I

should have thought that any Government would have welcomed an opportunity to simplify the Bill.
4.30 p.m.
It must be like this, unless the Government have some ulterior motive, which is what I think is the case. I have never seen a Government perform such amazing acrobatics in an attempt to see that landowners get every possible penny they can at the expense of the local authorities and the public. I have been amazed at some of the contortions of the right hon. Gentleman and the junior Ministers, and the arguments which have been produced during the Committee stage and in this Chamber to justify these provisions. I can only assume that a sane person would not perform such contortions and acrobatics unless there was some ulterior motive, which, in this case, is to see that the landowners get every possible penny of compensation which can be wrung out of the local authorities.
If the right hon. Gentleman had shown the same sympathy to local authorities and public authorities in the provisions of the Bill, the story might have been different, but he has not. He has turned down a number of Amendments which would have helped local authorities. In refusing to accept this Amendment the Government are demonstrating that they are not concerned about the public at all, otherwise they would never have produced this stuff.
The man whose land is acquired can hardly understand the wording of the Bill. Members of Parliament cannot understand it, never mind the persons whose land may be acquired.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: Nor can the Law Officers of the Crown.

Mr. Willis: That is correct. It was demonstrated during the Committee stage discussions on the Bill.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant) indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. But if he reads the Committee stage proceedings, particularly if he reads some of his own interventions, he will be astonished at the confusion which he managed to create. Not that that is unusual, but it is pertinent in relation to this Bill.
The Government are providing £12½ million extra for the landowners. We now discover that the owner-occupier, about whom we heard so much during the Second Reading debate, is not to get very much of that sum. In other words, it is to be a bribe to the landowners. We are getting, near a General Election, so the Government must make sure of a substantial donation from that source, because it is an expensive thing to fight an election. That is all the Minister is doing, and I resent that it is being done at the expense of the public.

Mr. Gibson: I was surprised that the Minister should justify his refusal to accept what we think a well-considered Amendment—one which simplifies the agreement over land values which, inevitably, is a complicated matter—by saying that in the Bill he is trying to frame exact rules. In the 29 lines of the Clause about which we are arguing, the words, "it shall be assumed" appear three times. Any Clause which contains so many assumptions cannot be other than very complicated and difficult to apply. Despite all that the Minister has said about professional associations, the fact is that they take the same view as is taken by hon. Members on this side of the Committee about the complications in this Clause.
I remind the Minister that I have previously quoted from a document sent to Members of Parliament by the Incorporated Society of Auctioneers and Landed Property Agents. The document contains these words:
The main criticism that has been made of the provisions for planning assumptions is that there is a danger that they may create a vast new field for dispute and litigation and for interminable further delays.
It is true that later in the same document it is stated that the planning assumptions appeared fair and reasonable. But whether they are fair and reasonable or not, it is obvious that they will create interminable delays and create further scope for argument and discussion.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the views of the Incorporated Association of Auctioneers and Landed Property Agents. It would have been reasonable for him to add the Association's conclusion, which appears at the

end of the document from which he quoted:
The Legal and Parliamentary Committee of the Society wish to place on record their appreciation of the skill with which the Bill has been drafted.

Mr. Gibson: That is quite true. I said that the Association thought the planning assumptions were reasonable, although I cannot square that with what is said earlier. But I have not met anyone who regards this Clause as being other than most complicated and the most difficult to understand in the whole Bill. And it is on this that the Government wish to base the amount of money to be paid by local authorities who buy land under compulsory purchase orders because they cannot acquire it by agreement.
It is not right to suggest that local authorities never agree. In many cases it is possible for a local authority, wishing to acquire land for public purposes, to agree upon a price with the owner, and then no trouble arises at all. Often we have been told by the Minister that he wishes to see the open market value used in future as a guiding principle for the price of land. If that be so, surely the transaction should be conducted in such a way as to avoid long, involved and irritating delays and arguments such as will be caused by endeavours to interpret the provisions in this Clause.
We are bound to ask why this has been done. We have been valuing land in this country for hundreds of years and we know what is meant by open market value. Land has changed hands millions of times on that basis. Now that we wish to get back to that system, I find it difficult to understand why it should be necessary to proceed in this way. I have no objection to the system of open market value. My objection is to allowing people to snap up the increased land value, but that is something which it would be out of order to discuss today. Obviously, it is easy to arrive at the open market value of a piece of land, although it may result in some argument. But I suggest that the amount of argument could be much less than will be the case if the provisions in this Clause are enacted.
The Committee would be well advised, in my opinion, to accept the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend, which would have the effect of simplifying the Clause.

Mr. William Ross: I think that my hon. Friends are being a little hard on the Minister. We must appreciate what is happening. For months the right hon. Gentleman has been living with this Clause-and-a-half which we seek to amend—so long, in fact, that now he has a glimmering of knowledge about it.
The right hon. Gentleman may be able to understand this wording, but even now he does not understand well enough to be able to enlighten anyone else. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) says to him, "Forget the present wording. Here are six lines of words which mean the same thing and will result in the job being done effectively." But the right hon. Gentleman has been engaged night after night, for months, trying to understand what has been created by the skill of the Parliamentary draftsman. Can we really expect him to give way on this matter?
When the Bill is enacted he will be the one man in Britain who understands this. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will be beaten at the General Election, because he represents a marginal constituency. Then he will be no longer a Minister but the one man in the country who understands this Bill. Yet my hon. and learned Friend expects him to give way, to accept this Amendment, and to give up that wonderful position.
The fact is that the Minister is so accustomed to the stygian darkness of the planning terms used in this welter of words that he is blinded with the common sense of the six lines that we put forward. He is terrified to change the Clause, because he does not know the effect of taking out even a couple of words. He talks about the skill of the draftsman—we all bow down to that—but although skilled it does not mean that the draftsman has been successful. The Minister set the draftsman a task, and to be able to get anything at all in under six pages is quite an achievement.
The Minister's attitude to our Amendment is that it is far too simple to be trusted. We have a proposed new Clause on the Notice Paper, but it is suspect because people can understand it. What does it say? That there will not be a terrible amount of wrangling and delay if the Committee accepts these

seven lines. There will be room for differences of opinion and for appeals to the Lands Tribunal in England and Wales and to the Official Arbiter in Scotland. The Minister prefers the existing Clause, with the rigmarole and the unreality of precise rules. We cannot have precise rules in a matter like this, where we start on the assumption that what will happen will not happen, and then we start all this caper of valuation.
It means that the matter will go to the Official Arbiter. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise who the Official Arbiter for Scotland will be? Perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will tell the right hon. Gentleman. He will be the "reasonable valuer", or practically the same fellow. What is wrong with the new Clause we are proposing? I want the Joint Under-Secretary of State to address himself to that, when he replies, with the valuable assistance, if "assistance" we can call it, of the Solicitor-General for Scotland. We want to know the relationship of what we are now discussing with the Scottish position.
I can tell the Joint Under-Secretary that he will have no plaudits from the professional gentlemen in Scotland or from the Official Arbiter. He knows quite well what will happen. We are rightly concerned about the amount of wrangling which will go on under Clauses 2 and 3. It is desirable that we should know exactly how the Scottish Departments feel about the Clause, and about the Amendment and the proposed new Clause that we are suggesting. Do they prefer sticking to these incomprehensible formulas? If so, the suspicions that were voiced so objectively and naturally by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) were justified.
In turning down our proposed new Clause in Committee the Minister told us that individuals would be unfairly dealt with by it. I would point out that the new Clause says that
For the purpose of assessing compensation in respect of a compulsory acquisition such assumptions shall be made as would be made by a reasonable valuer.
In view of the fact that the "reasonable valuer" will tomorrow be the Official Arbiter, what opportunity is there for injustice?
4.45 p.m.
In Scotland, we want information about this matter. We want a far better answer on our Amendments and our proposed new Clause than we have had. I am glad to see the Lord Advocate arrive. I hope that we shall hear from him. Perhaps he has arrived to listen to the performance of the Solicitor General for Scotland. Whichever of those two right hon. and learned Gentlemen will address himself to the proposed new Clause, we. who represent Scottish people, will be waiting with bated breath for every word they utter. They will find it so much easier to speak about the proposed new Clause than about the Clauses as they stand.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: This Clause has caused more confusion than any other Clause that we have had under consideration. It is very complicated and difficult to understand. Despite the debate that we had in the Standing Committee, I doubt whether many Government supporters would be prepared to say that they know entirely what the whole Clause means. It is extremely complicated. The Minister, I am sorry to say, has not properly explained the purport of this part of Clause 3 to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the Committee, and its relationship to the following Clauses.
The information that we have about the intentions of subsections (1), (2) and (3), and indeed of the whole of Clause 3, is embodied in the Explanatory Memorandum which the Minister issued in connection with the Bill. The purport of subsections (1) and (2) is based on the necessity of planning permission being given upon the basis on which compensation has to be assessed. The planning permission may not be for the purpose for which the local authority acquired the land. That leads to a further complication in the following Clause, in which the local authority that changes the use of that piece of land within five years to a more valuable purpose may be called upon to pay additional compensation to the owner.
The confusion, one of many confusions, exists in connection with two main principles. The Explanatory Memorandum says, of subsection (1), which we are proposing to delete:
Subsection (1) of this Clause provides that if the land being acquired is defined as a site

for proposed development, permission for that development is to be assumed.
That is not too bad. When we come to subsection (2) the matter becomes more confused. The Memorandum says:
Subsection (2) deals with land in an area allocated to some primary use, for instance, residential use. Here the assumption is to be that permission would be given for that use. But development plans are neither so certain nor so precise as planning permissions; thus any of several kinds of development might be said to be residential, and it would not be fair to assume always the most valuable or the least valuable of these but rather the kind which would be reasonable. Accordingly, in saying that a permission is to be assumed for development for the primary use indicated in the plan the subsection adds that it must be such as would reasonably he expected to be granted.
Planning permission for what would reasonably be expected to be granted may not be a planning permission for the use to which the local authority is trying to put the land. There is a wide variety of uses under the term "residential use", as the White Paper explains. The planning permission should not be based on the highest value. It should not be based on the lowest value, but presumably on some use between the two extremes. The local authority may not require the land for the use of the planning permission which would be given based on the two extremes of residential use.
So we have compensation being determined on a basis for which the local authority does not require to use the land. What is to happen in the case of the owner of the land? Obviously, if his land is included in a development plan for residential use and there is a wide variety of uses under that designation, some of low value, some of high value, the owner of the land will want to get the highest, not the lowest, value. It is almost inevitable that owners will fight—by that I mean take the matter to the Lands Tribunal—and ask for a planning permission based on the highest use value for residential purposes. What the Lands Tribunal will decide to do we do not know.
Then we come to the explanation of subsection (3) contained in the Memorandum. It says:
This same point arises with even greater force where the area is allocated for a range of several primary uses, as happens in some central areas of cities; and subsection (3) deals with that case.


Subsection (3) is far more complicated than subsection (2) because, as it says, it deals with an area in which there is
a range of several primary uses, as happens in some central areas of cities;".
I should say that in all central areas of cities the same primary uses in the development plan may include industrial, residential and open space uses, the three principal designated uses; there are lots of others. Consequently, if a local authority in a city area is intending to acquire a piece of land for a public purpose and, to arrive at compensation, a planning permission has to be obtained which is not necessarily a planning permission for the use to which the local authority is to put the land but based on the primary uses, such planning permission should be a reasonable one, not the highest nor the lowest value use.
So, once again, for the purpose of basing compensation for the acquisition of land, we have a basis laid down in the Bill for a planning permission which does not relate in any way at all to the purpose and use to which the local authority is to put the land.
When we consider later Clauses of the Bill we see that this must lead to considerable confusion. If the local authority decides to change the use to which it is intended to put the land within five years to a higher value, it has to pay additional compensation to the person from whom it has acquired the land. Exactly how is the valuer to determine the increment and value arising in that case when the local authority has changed its use to something of a higher value? Who is to determine the higher value to which the local authority has put it? The original purpose for which the local authority acquired it may have no relationship whatever to the formula of the planning permission, which is neither the highest value nor the lowest value but is a reasonable one, upon which compensation is to be paid. If the use is changed to another purpose within five years, creating a higher value, how is that higher value to be determined? The higher use may have no relationship whatever to the original planning permission which was given for compensation purposes.
I will not attempt to answer that question. With all respect to the resources behind him, I feel sure that the right hon.

Gentleman would find it very difficult to answer it in a way that it could be understood both by local authorities, who want to know what their liabilities are when they acquire land, and owners, who obviously expect and are entitled to compensation for the acquisition of their land. Clause 3 is one of the most difficult and complicated in the Bill. It is very hard to see how it can be intelligently applied in reality outside by various people concerned with this kind of business. By taking these three subsections out of the Clause, we would be very considerably simplifying the process. I do not think that that would hamper or endanger in any way the main, fundamental purpose of the Bill, which is to provide fair compensation for owners of land whose land is taken over by local authorities.
We know there are many Amendments which have been put forward on later Clauses with a view to giving the owner much more than a fair and reasonable price for his land. We stand for a fair and reasonable price for the land. Our difference with hon. Members opposite is that they do not stand for that. They want the maximum, the highest price, the last farthing that can be got from the public purse for the owner of the land when it is acquired for public use.
It seems to us that this Clause is adding worse confusion. If it were taken out, as we suggest, it would very considerably simplify this matter and enable the people concerned with it sensibly to apply the principles underlying Clauses 1 and 2 in trying to arrive at what is a market value for the land. If the Clause is left in the Bill, it will not only lead to great confusion but to delay in arriving at settlements of claims because all owners will be after the highest price.
The Bill provides, in other Clauses, ways and means for them to be after the highest price. If we are concerned with a reasonable price and with simplifying the procedure of the Bill, I feel sure the Committee should accept the Amendment, because it would be of great advantage.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: The difference between the two sides of the Committee is more than the purely technical one which the right hon. Gentleman tried to suggest. If he seriously


believes that the Bill is intended to produce a market value—what I called in Committee upstairs a plain, honest, British market value that everyone will recognise when they see it as being a fair price for their land—I believe that the Amendment points the way in which that can be reached.
If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that cannot be obtained, because he implied that at once we got into conditions in which it was impossible because of compulsory purchase to reach a market value by ordinary methods of valuation, the right hon. Gentleman is simply practising a swindle on the public because he conveyed the impression to the Committee upstairs, and he is now conveying the same impression, that the Bill is about market value.
If it is about market value that is something which a valuer applying the ordinary rules laid down in the 1919 Act can use. The rules under the Act are perfectly simple:
The value of land shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be taken to he the amount which the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller might he expected to realize…
It has been obvious since 1919 that if the land is being acquired compulsorily by a local authority it will not be sold in the open market and, from that point of view, we cannot get, by negotiation, a market value. That has always been true.
The right hon. Gentleman has not made it clear why this is any more true now than it was in 1919. What has entered into the picture is that now there are planning permissions and a development plan, which there were not before. That is something which the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) every day of his busy life has been asking himself when questioned by innumerable clients as they queue up for advice. He asks (1), what are the planning permissions already secured and, (2), what are the prospects of getting more? What have been the refusals already and what are the local conditions which, as a valuer of experience, he can use to give guidance towards achieving the market price?
If that is' what a valuer can do, there is no need to tie him up with a lot of

rules. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill as at present drafted was more precise than it would be under my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, but it is a spurious position. There is nothing more likely to cause litigation and misunderstanding than filling a Bill with a lot of words which do not, in fact, give any more real guidance to a valuer as to what is the price, but merely wrap up the perfectly simple question he has to ask himself.
The new Clause, the way for which is paved by this Amendment, goes to the root of the Bill. If the Bill is the answer to the arguments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) that compulsory acquisition should be at market value—if that is its intention—then the best way of getting a market value is to use the reasonable valuer and to accept the decision which an ordinary valuer, applying his common sense to the situation, would reach. To wrap it up in all these extraordinary complicated rules in these Clauses is simply playing an elaborate game with the landowner, because it is creating a situation which is so artificial and so full of terms of art and technical jargon that the result will not be one which a layman will recognise as a fair price for the land, but will be something which a valuer will reach as a result of mathematical calculations which will please him because he will feel that he has done an artificial exercise, but will not, in any way, represent what other people think is the market value. That, I think, is the object of the Bill.
I suggest that if the Government are really anxious to meet the public demand for basing compensation for acquisition on market value, then they ought to accept the proposals in the new Clause because those are what the ordinary member of the public thinks is meant by market value.

Mr. Willis: I am sorry to see that the Scottish Ministers are apparently gagged —[An HON. MEMBER: "Asleep."]—or asleep, because my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) addressed an important question to the Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Joint Under-Secretary. He addressed it to both. We certainly aught to have something said about it. He adduced an argument concerning the position of the


valuer and the Official Arbiter which is very relevant to what we are discussing and our attitude towards this matter. We have heard nothing about that. I hope that one of the Ministers will reply to the question put by my hon. Friend, and tell us what is exactly the position in Scotland and how this affects us.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As I explained quite clearly upstairs, practically all Official Arbiters are qualified valuers and would never take up any case in which they were sitting as Official Arbiters.

Mr. Willis: Surely professional arbiters act in accordance with common professional principles, as do valuers, if they are available, and professional codes of conduct. They act in very much the same way.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Like lawyers, they have to have certain rules laid down which they have to interpret. A valuer has to know the principles on which he is acting and those principles are laid down in the lines of the Clause which the Opposition Amendment propose should be deleted. It is in order to enable them to have these principles on which to act that the lines were inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Sparks: They do not want them.

Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that valuers have to have certain principles on which to act. That is to say that two valuers who agree the compensation payable according to the general practice between one private seller and one private buyer will apply certain principles not written in the Bill and will reach a certain result. That result in relation to a piece of land which is to be compulsorily acquired is the open market value which we are all seeking. What we are trying to do by the Amendment is to get at what those two valuers would reach, in the absence of any compulsory acquisition and in the absence of any of the provisions which we are seeking to take out of the Clause, as between a willing seller and a willing buyer.
In seeking to obtain that result we are doing what is intended, apart from the planning permission, by the second rule in the 1919 Act which is really the overriding rule for the whole of the principle

of compensation for compulsory acquisition. There is no doubt whatever that that is what we are saying in the Amendment. When we leave matters to the reasonable valuer and enjoin him to have regard to certain grantings of planning permission and certain refusals of planning permission we are merely telling him to provide the open market value having regard to those planning matters.
If the valuer were acting in a purely private deal, he would equally have regard to those planning matters. The only fault that I find with the Amendment is that it is, perhaps, a little unnecessary even to ask him to do that. I have put in many other matters to cover other possibilities which, of course, the valuer would have to take into account. What is wrong with that?
The right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh no, we have reached absolute truth. We can tell him in about 50 or 60 lines of involved and tortuous print exactly what he has to do in every case." What has the valuer been doing all these years when valuing as between the private seller and the private buyer? Without getting the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman's midnight lucubrations he has acted with good sense, on local knowledge, long practice, fairness and a number of other things. He has been doing, in fact, what the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) told us he did when we were discussing the matter in Committee. By doing that, he has arrived at the open market value?
What about this Amendment? No one has suggested that the valuer does not arrive at the open market value in exactly the same way in which the value is now arrived at between private persons. I gave the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of indicating any difference. He neither wished to do so nor could do so, and, consequently, we come down to the Amendment. The Amendment is going to give the open market value. The Clauses in the Bill either will or will not produce the same result. In some cases they will and in others they will not. In the cases where they produce the same result they will merely reach it by a more complicated, tortuous and involved process and in language which will afford not less but many more opportunities for lawyers. In the cases where they do not reach the same result as the Amendment they will have created an injustice.
I share my hon. Friend's suspicions. If, in fact, the Bill is intended to arrive at a fair open market value then the Amendment ought to be accepted. If it is intended to arrive sometimes or always at some different result then, of course, these long Clauses are no doubt necessary. What we do not know is the result. All that we know, judging by the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends on other Clauses of the Bill is that it is much more likely to be a result in favour of the large landowner for whom the Bill appears to be intended than in favour of the local authority and the ratepayers which it represents for these purposes. That is all we know, and we are inclined to be suspicious.
5.15 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman says, "It is all in my rules." Let me point out to him once more the one thing which is not in his rules. We are to assume this, that and the other planning permission, since we are sick of asking, till one is piled on top of the other and the mountain is so heavy that the addition of a few more planning permissions makes no difference to the value. We can believe all that. At the end of the day who is

to judge the weight to be given to these planning permissions and their real importance in arriving at the value? The answer is, of course, the man who is making the valuation, the reasonable valuer. One can tie him round with fetters, Clauses and verbiage till he hardly knows where he is, and at the end of the day he has to make the same sort of common sense judgment as he would make under the Amendment unfettered by all this unnecessary stuff.

As my hon. Friend so clearly pointed out, one of the objects of the Bill is to make it appear that for once a Tory Government are being fair. If that is the intention of it, then I suggest that the Government are very ill-advised in disregarding an Amendment which would convince the ordinary man far better than the mass of verbiage that at present appears in the Bill. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will divide on the Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 210, Noes 171.

Division No. 68.]
AYES
[5.17 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gurden, Harold


Aitken, W. T.
Corfield, F. V.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Alport, C. J. M.
Courtney, Cdr. A.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Arbuthnot, John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Armstrong, C. W.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Ashton, H.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Currie, G. B. H.
Hay, John


Balniel, Lord
Dance, J. C. G,
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Barter, John
Davidson, Viscountess
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Bataford, Brian
Davies.Rt.Hn.Clement (Montgomery)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Deedes, W. F.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hobson,John(Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Drayson, G. B.
Hornby, R. P.


Bidgood, J. C.
Eden, J. B (Bournemouth, West)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle uponTyne.N.)
Horobin, Sir Ian


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bishop, F. P.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Body, R. F.
Erroll, F. J.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Fell, A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Fisher, Nigel
Iremonger, T. L.


Brooman-White, R, C,
Fort, R.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Freeth, Denzil
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bryan, P.
Gammans, Lady
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Burden, F. F. A.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Johnson, Erie (Blackley)


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron-Walden)
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Carr, Robert
Godber, J. B.
Kershaw, J. A.


Cary, Sir Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Kimball, M.


Channon, H. P. G.
Gough, C. F. H.
Kirk, P. M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gower, H. R.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Leavey, J. A.


Cole, Norman
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodslde)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Green, A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Cooke, Robert
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Cooper, A. E.
Grimond, J.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)




Linstead, Sir H. N.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Studholme Sir Henry


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Orr-Ewing, c. Ian (Hendon, N.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Loveyt, Walter H.
Osborne, C.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Page, R. G.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Partridge, E.
Temple, John M.


McAdden, S. J.
Peel, W. J.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Powell, J. Enoch
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Maddan, Martin
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Vane, W. M. F.


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Redmayne, M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Rees-Davies W. R.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Remnant Hon. P.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Renton, D. L. M.
Wakefield,Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Marshall, Douglas
Ridsdale, J. E.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Mathew, R.
Robertson, Sir David
Walker-Smith Rt. Hon. Derek


Mawby, R. L.
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wall, Patrick


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Ward, Rt. Hon. C. R. (Worcester)


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Roper, Sir Harold
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Moore, Sir Thomas
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Russell, R. S.
Webster, David


Nabarro, C. D. N.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Nairn, D. L. S.
Sharpies, R. C
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Neave, Alrey
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wolrige-Gordon Patrick


Nicholls, Harmar
Speir, R. M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Stevens, Geoffrey



Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Oakshott, H. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
 Mr. Finlay and Mr. Whitelaw




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mahon, Simon


Albu, A. H.
Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersd, E.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Greenwood, Anthony
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mason, Roy


Benson, Sir George
Grey, C. F.
Mellish, R. j.


Beswick, Frank
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mikardo, Ian


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mitchison, G. R.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hale, Leslle
Monslow, W.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hamilton, W. W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea W.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hannan, W.
Mort, D. L.


Boyd, T. C.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Moss, R.


Brockway, A. F.
Hastings, S,
Moyle, A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hayman, F. H.
Mulley, F. W.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Healey, Denis
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Oliver, G. H.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Herbison, Miss M.
Oram, A. E.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hewltson, Capt. M.
Oswald, T.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Owen, W. J.


Carmichael, J.
Holman, P.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Holmes, Horace
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Champion, A. J.
Houghton, Douglas
Parkin, B. T.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hoy, J. H.
Paton, John


Cliffe, Michael
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pearson, A.


Coldrick, W.
Hunter, A. E.
Peart, T. F.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pentland, N.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Popplewell, E.


Cronin, J. D.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Prentice, R. E.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Probert A. R.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Janner, B.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Randall, H. E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Reeves, J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Reynolds, G. W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Deer, G.
Kenyon, C.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Diamond, John
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancrat, N.)


Dodds, N. N.
Lawson, G. M.
Ross, William


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Short, E. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Lewis, Arthur
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lindgren, G. S.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Logan, D. G.
Skeffington, A. M.


Edwards, W.J. (Stepney)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McCann, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke S.)


Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, J. E.
Snow, J. W.


Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Mclnnes, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Fletcher, Eric
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Foot, D. M.
McLeavy, Frank
Sparks, J. A.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Spriggs, Leslie







Stonehouse, John
Warbey, W. N.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Weitzman, D.
Woof, R. E.


strauss, Rt. Hon. George (vauxhall)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wilkins, W. A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Sylvester, G. 0.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Zilliacus, K.


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)



Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Viant S. P.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(MODIFICATION OF RULES FOR ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION.)

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 11, line 10, after "section", to insert:
and the provisions of section (Global assessments) of this Act".
It would probably be helpful if we could discuss with this Amendment the next one in page 11, line 14, after "provisions", insert "of this section" and the new Clause—(Global assessments)—which is referred to in the Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Royle): I am sure that the Committee will be agreeable to that course.

Mr. MacColl: To those hon. Members whose faces show the wear and tear of having borne many long and anxious hours of deliberation in Standing Committee D, this proposed new Clause will bring up a problem which is very familiar indeed. There will, however, be hon. Members who have not had the privilege of serving on that Standing Committee arid to whom I might explain very quickly what it is all about.
It takes us back to the hallowed name of Uthwatt and to the Uthwatt Report. One of the two great problems which the Uthwatt Report posed was that if one tried to calculate the value of a number of parcels of land, the sum total of the estimates of those values would come to more than the total value which one would get if, in fact, the development took place. because, owing to the optimism of each individual landowner thinking and hoping that on his particular piece of land the development would happen, each owner tended to be equally optimistic and therefore, the sum of the optimisms of all the owners came to something which might be quite an extravagant figure.
One of the weaknesses of the Bill, as was pointed out on Second Reading, is that in general it makes no attempt to deal with the problem caused by floating value—that is, that development value which is floating over the land and which

may drop down on any particular piece which happens to be selected for the actual development. In order to deal with that point my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who has put his matchless gifts at the disposal of the Government on so many occasions in Standing Committee D, produced an Amendment to deal with it.
The Minister, with, I hope, unaccustomed unwillingness to recognise assistance from whatever source it comes, was, I thought, a little cold in rejecting the suggestions of my hon. and learned Friend, and he made some fairly valid criticisms of the details of the proposal. Therefore, we have now produced a new Clause which I think, if I may say so as I had nothing to do with its drafting, is a remarkable piece of drafting by my hon. and learned Friend at his highest achievement.
This is broadly how it would work. The problem is this. If a number of pieces of land are to be acquired for one particular operation of development, the first point is that the total value of those different pieces of land involved in this operation should be more than £5,000. That, in other words, is to cut out all the small operations which, although technically there might be a certain amount of excess value in them, are so small that the amount of work involved would not be justified by the result. It starts, therefore, by eliminating the smaller developments.
5.30 p.m.
The new Clause provides also that the Minister may alter the figure of £5,000 if, from experience of land values and of the working of the Measure, he comes to the conclusion that that should be done. In other words, there is a discretion for him to adapt the machinery to the facts of the situation. Further, if the acquiring authority wishes to apply the procedure laid down in the Clause, it is to have a discretion so that it may elect whether or not to do so. If the acquiring authority elects to do so, it serves notices on the owners of the land.
In cases where acquiring authorities have so elected, the requirement is that two operations should be undertaken. First, each of the pieces of land should be valued under the ordinary terms of the Bill. Second, the whole area should be valued as a whole although it is in different ownerships. If the sum of the individual values is greater or less than the value of the whole by more than 5 per cent., allowing for a tolerance for cases where the difference is so small as not to justify a complicated scaling down, then the amount received by the owner of each individual piece of land will be reduced or increased in proportion so that the total amount paid out by the acquiring authority will not be more than the total value of the land valued as a whole. After all, it is the value of the whole land which is to be developed as a whole which concerns the public authority.
A typical illustration is given by a proposal to develop land which is nothing but ploughed fields. Let us suppose that it is proposed by the public authority to develop the land for a housing estate with houses and shops on it. Some parts of the land will have shops on them, particularly that part which is to be the centre of the shopping area of the neighbourhood. Other parts of the land will have houses on them. Others may have only allotments on them. But the plan is one plan and, therefore, it is reasonable to say that, in the first place, it is not right that every piece of land should have the value which would be placed on it if it were used as a shopping centre. Nobody could deny, I think, that it would be wrong for every individual landowner to have the full value of his land based on the assumption that it would be used for a shopping centre. Similarly, it would be wrong in many ways, where the land is taken as a whole, that a particular owner should receive more because he happened to be the lucky one.
This principle is not a new one. It is a principle which is accepted already in the Bill in regard to redevelopment areas and new towns. All we are suggesting is that the same principle should be recognised through the machinery of this Clause. We accept the principle that fair value should be paid for land when it is acquired. We do not quarrel or argue about that. What we challenge is

the idea that more than the fair price should be paid for the land. This point has come up again and again in our discussions. It is always assumed, on the one hand, that the acquiring authority is a ruthless dictator with enormous resources, and, on the other hand, that the landowner is a poor person who is being put to enormous suffering by the acquisition of his land.
What is happening, in fact, is that the people as a whole, through their elected representatives, are developing an area for the public good, doing it out of public money, the ratepayers' money and the taxpayers' money. Therefore, it is just as important that we should be astute to see that no more than a fair amount is paid out of the taxpayers' and ratepayers' money as it is that we should see that the price paid is a reasonable and fair one.
In our discussions upstairs, the Minister said that he thought that we were a little out of date in talking about floating value. He said that floating value was a valid concept in the time of Uthwatt but that, as a result of the working of the 1947 Act and the introduction of development plans, the number of cases where there would be a floating value was very small. That was an interesting point which he tossed out to us as a morsel of his thought, but he did not really develop his argument and did not give us any clear explanation why he thought it. Nor did he, even then, say that there would be no cases.
The Minister made it perfectly clear, first of all, that he admitted that there were no difficulties in arriving at an assessment of global value, the value of the land as a whole. He accepted that, as a piece of valuers' work, that was something which could be done, though it was difficult. He made it clear also that, in some cases, global value might be greater and in some cases might be less than the sum of the values of each individual piece. This new Clause meets that difficulty because it leaves it to the election of the acquiring authority which machinery it should adopt.
In moving the Amendment, which introduces the new Clause, I think I need say no more. It is fully consistent with the principles of the Bill as expressed by


the Government. As the Minister said upstairs, it is administratively a workable arrangement, and it will, in some cases, prevent the public from being exploited by amounts of compensation being paid out which are quite out of reason compared both with the value which people would derive from developing the land themselves and with the loss which individual landowners might incur.
As I said earlier, the trouble is that, once one asks the question, "What is the value of a piece of land taken as an individual parcel?" the problem immediately arises as to whether it is the piece of land upon which the development is to fall. The principle has already been recognised in other Clauses of the Bill in dealing with particular types of development. There is, I think, no serious quarrel about the principle.
Thanks to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering, we have now reached a solution of a problem which worried us on Second Reading and during our long deliberations upstairs. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to express his appreciation to my hon. and learned Friend for what he has done to help the Government in this matter and to accept the new Clause for the value it will give to the Bill.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: In supporting the Amendment, I wish to draw attention to the extraordinary attitude which the Government have adopted to the whole problem of floating value in the course of our consideration of the Bill. As many of us recall, they have, first of all, represented floating value as something of academic significance only, a conception which was important to Lord Uthwatt but of rapidly decreasing importance since. At the same moment, they have under one heading or another revealed that they still attach great importance to the conception. Their attitude to this has been wholly inconsistent throughout.
We all remember that the Government have paid the most careful attention to this matter in their treatment of compensation for acquisition of sites in areas of comprehensive development. It remains true, even at this late stage in our consideration of the Bill, that in paragraph 15 of the Explanatory Memorandum (Cmnd. 562) we have an impeccable and classical statement of floating value and what ought to be done

about it. This seems to many of us very inconsistent indeed.
I remind hon. Members, further, of this interesting circumstance. Some of us desired that the Bill should be amended to make provision that, when there were special assumptions about planning permissions under the machinery of the Bill, it should not only be assumed that permission would be granted for uses that were uses set out in the current development plan as uses to which areas would be primarily allocated and zoned, but that there should be, equivalently, an assumption of planning permission in the case of ancillary uses.
We had in mind such cases as the petrol filling station or the garage in the residential area. It can often happen, if a person owns a site in an area zoned for residential use, that he will get permission to develop the site, not for residential purposes, but for a purpose like a petrol filling station, a use which is regarded as ancillary to residential use.
When we tried to get the provisions of the Bill altered to take account of that, the Parliamentary Secretary was as bold as brass and said that it would never do, because if the Amendment were carried every owner of the piecemeal properties in the area would be compensated for the chance that he would have that the more valuable use might arrive upon his land, with the result of excessive compensation being paid to the owners concerned. That was breathtaking. There was a good deal of force and substance in the argument. Many of us acknowledged that. The whole argument, however, was founded upon the reality as a matter of valuation of this concept of floating values. It is fair to remind the Committee, therefore, of the inconsistency of the Government in this connection throughout their treatment of the Bill and to ask them to consider it once again, even at this late stage.
There is the additional point to be remembered that to introduce the conception of global assessment is not to introduce a compensation that would be favourable only to the acquiring authority. It is undoubtedly—possibly, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) will recognise this as readily as any—a concept, as the hon. Member has gone so far as to admit, which may often benefit the owners of interests in land.


That does not make it an any the less irrelevant or fair concept in our view of this matter.
If an owner of an interest in land is having land acquired and if, say, he owns a plot of land which, by reason of its acreage, is well suited to provide the site for two houses but is too small to provide room for three, it may well be to the advantage of the owner of that interest that, instead of applying to his site a piecemeal valuation, one should take into account the global assessment and give him thereby the value to the balance of his land which is attributable to its potentiality as a site for a third house overlapping an existing boundary.
5.45 p.m.
Therefore, we are not putting forward in the Amendment an argument for a change that would always take effect to the advantage of the acquiring authority. It is something which will take effect with general fairness and sometimes to the advantage of the owner of the interest. In principle, we consider it to be fair, workmanlike and businesslike.
The only depressing feature in these matters is that the Minister is so unpersuadable. He shows no indication of preference for ideas which are offered to him. There is no hint of selectivity or preference whatever. He is simply stonewalling the whole time until we are threatened with tedium in the matter. If only he would indicate that some our propositions are more welcome to him than others, that would help us.
We cannot, however, get even the faintest academic encouragement or discouragement. It is a kind of Jokari. Let the Minister, therefore, consider this matter somewhat academically and a little more sympathetically. Bearing always in mind that this is a change that sometimes would accrue to the advantage of the owner of the interest, let him show a more yielding and responsive frame of mind.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I should like briefly to support the arguments so eloquently put by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). In doing so, I should like to quote two

small sections from the Final Report of the Uthwatt Committee, for certainly, in all our deliberations upstairs, we never had a valid argument to show that the basis of the Committee's theory about floating value and the effect of it in assessing compensation over a large area no longer held good under today's conditions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes indicated in moving the Amendment, to quote this extract from paragraph 23 of the Final Report, the conception that the Uthwatt Committee had in mind was this:
If we assume a town gradually spreading outwards, where the fringe land on the north, south, east and west is all equally available for development, each of the owners of such fringe land to the north, south, east and west will claim equally that the next development will settle' on his land. Yet the average annual rate of development demand of past years may show that the quantum of demand is only enough to absorb the area of one side within such a period of the future as commands a present value.
In paragraph 24, the Committee went on to say:
Potential value is necessarily a 'floating value,' and it is impossible to predict with certainty where the float' will settle as sites are actually required for purposes of development.
That process happens in just the same way today, even though there may be a general plan for the whole of the area. Paragraph 24 goes on to say:
In practice where this process is repeated indefinitely over a large area the sum of the probabilities as estimated greatly exceeds the actual possibilities, because the float,' limited as it is to actually occurring demands, can only settle on a proportion of the whole area. There is therefore over-valuation.
The Committee later, in the development of the argument which led to its conclusions about global value, not only refers to compulsory purchase, but also to some of the planning powers, which, though permissive, existed even before 1939, whereby local authorities, or in those days the Minister of Health, could, for the preservation of the countryside make orders which have the same effect as the powers under the Town & Country Planning Act, 1947. If that be the case, one cannot see how the Minister can say that the conception of global value has no relevance because of the planning powers contained in the 1947 Act. I think that the Committee would be very grateful if the Minister could show the


fallacy of the argument that I have been developing. It is true that planning is now on a much greater scale than in 1939, but nevertheless the Committee referred specifically to planning in paragraph 29, and this very distinguished Committee, probably one of the most influential committees of experts in land which has ever met, still came to that conclusion about global value being the fair way to compensate individual owners.
Our new Clause as drafted would apply only to cases where compensation would involve more than £5,000 and would thus cut out the large number of small claims, which usually do not present the difficulty. There is provision whereby this sum could he varied if the Government felt later that it was unsuitable. The machinery of applying the global valuation is very simple. The individual parcels of land would be valued under the principles of the Bill and one would then only compare their collective value with the global valuation of the whole area. It is only if there he a difference of more than 5 per cent. between the total of the individual parcels of land and the global value of the land that an adjustment would be made in the price of individual parcels of land to be compulsorily acquired.
It seems to me that this proposal would he extremely fair to everybody. It would be fair to the local authority, to the ratepayer and, I should have thought, to the landowner. If any right hon. or hon. Gentleman thinks that it is right that a landowner should get a greater proportion than the total value of the whole area justifies, I hope that he will justify it. It seems to me to be an entirely new proposition that we are prepared to see the public and local authorities pay £X+ to a landowner even though it can be proved conclusively that the total value of land in the area is equal to only £X. If any hon. Member holds that view, I hope that he will justify it. We heard no justification for that view in Committee and the public would be glad to hear justification of it now.
I hope that the Minister will take the view that this is a reasonable Amendment and that he will accept it in this or some other form.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) said that this was a perfectly fair Amendment. He referred to the words "greater or less" in subsection (3) and indicated that it might work both ways. What he did not say, however, was that the operation of the new Clause starts with an election by the local authority, and it would seem to be astonishing that any local or public authority would make an election to operate this new Clause if the result would be that it would have to pay more for the property which it desires to acquire than it otherwise would have to do. This is a proposal which would in certain circumstances enable a local authority to elect to claim that it should buy land at a lower value than it would have to pay on the basis of totalling what are called the individual amounts relating to each of the separate interests in that land.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that I was undiscriminating in my attitude towards ideas. Let me rebut that statement straight away. I consider that this is a much better Amendment than the Amendment moved on 27th November. This is an occasion when four months' thinking have done the Opposition a lot of good, but it still is not a good Amendment for reasons which I will seek to explain.
With regard to floating value, I must now repeat what I said in Committee, namely, that the magnitude of floating value is wholly different from what it was when the Uthwatt Committee reported. I say again that the Opposition do not appear to have realised how effective their 1947 Act has been in eliminating floating value. I do not say that no floating value exists anywhere, but clearly the problem is different from what it was when the Uthwatt Committee reported and before the 1947 Act.
The new Clause is an attempt to enable a local authority to buy a piece of land as a whole as though it were all in one ownership, when in fact it is not all in one ownership—when there are various interests in the land and when the sum of the amount which it would have otherwise to pay for acquiring each of those interests would exceed the value of the land considered as being in one ownership.
First, that is a departure from market values. One can no longer say that the owner is being compensated on the basis of market value. I understood on Second Reading that that basic concept was accepted by the Opposition, although sometimes some of my hon. Friends in Committee may have wondered whether that was so.

Mr. Willis: The Government must have accepted it.

Mr. Brooke: But by moving the Amendment the Opposition are clearly departing from the basic principle that the individual shall be compensated for his interest in land on the basis of market value.

Mr. MacColl: We are only following the advice of the Minister in Clause 8. He has done the departing and we are learning our lesson from him.

Mr. Brooke: I cannot congratulate the hon. Member on the way he learns lessons. The practical side—

Mr. MacColl: Why is it not the same thing as Clause 8, in so far as it is a departure from market value?

Mr. Brooke: Because Clause 8, in general, deals with the conception that where land is being purchased for a new and special purpose one ignores the detail consequent on that purpose in the calculation of market value. What the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do by the Amendment is to import the purely artificial conception that all this land is to be regarded as being in one ownership if thereby the local authority could buy more cheaply.

Mr. Mitchison: Has the Minister got his own Clause right? What it does ignore is the development of other land adjoining the relevant land. In effect, it makes a global assessment in particular cases and in relation to special circumstances. But it is a departure on the lines of this Amendment from what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying is the principle of the Bill.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Brooke: No. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has got the lines crossed. I grant that I was simplifying and abbreviating the purpose of Clause 8,

but I think that when my words are read they will be seen to be not an unreasonable summary of it.
However that may be, we must examine this new Clause on its practical merits and demerits. One of those demerits as in the previous Amendment of 27th November, is that nothing would ever get settled. This procedure of incredible complexity is here laid down simply and solely to ensure, as I understand it, that what the Uthwatt Committee said about floating value is taken fully into account. Under this new Clause every owner, quite clearly, would have the right not only to contest the individual amount of the assessment in respect of his own land, but also the global assessment, because what he would receive eventually might be affected by that. None of the final amounts which anyone would receive could be arrived at until all those disputes were settled.
I must tell the Committee that the provision for payments on account does not meet or overcome that difficulty in any way. If I read the new Clause aright, the individual owner would not have a right to intervene in the assessment of the individual amount for other interests. It seems strange that he should not, because, quite clearly, his own compensation might be affected by them. So that would be, as it appears, an act of injustice to the owner concerned. Nevertheless, even if the man intervened there would still, as I say, be almost indefinite scope for delay in settling all the other disputes which must have been settled before any individual owner could receive what was due to him.
So in that, too, the new Clause would not work satisfactorily in practice; and, as I put to the Standing Commttee, we do not want to frame a Bill which will have the result that it becomes considerably harder for public authorities to get on with projects which are desirable in the general interest simply because the Bill, as the Opposition would amend it, would create a system of compensation whereby the scope of dispute would be so vast as really to deter anybody from embarking on it at all.
It is most important, and surely both sides of the Committee must accept this, that if one is going to have compulsory purchase at all—and both sides, I think, accept that there must be compulsory purchase in certain cases—the procedure


by which the compensation is to be settled shall nor be so protracted as to cause inordinate delay, not only maddening to the owner who will not receive his money, but frustrating for the local authority engaged in this prolonged disputation.
I go back to what I said at the beginning. Are we to compensate the individual owner on the basis of market value or not? Clearly, this new Clause would not do that.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) was fearful, I think, lest under the Bill as it stands every individual owner could claim the benefit of floating value. I think he was referring back to a matter with which I sought to deal in Standing Committee. He seemed to have in mind that if land were being bought for housing purposes, each individual owner could claim successfully that the plot of land which he possessed would be the plot of land on which the corner shop or small shopping centre would go up. If the Bill emerges from this Committee and from the Report stage with the Amendments which stand in my name, that certainly will not be so. They seek to safeguard against that happening.
We have sought to secure that where a man is having his land compulsorily purchased, and where he claims that there might be a small shopping centre on his land although the whole area around is being bought for housing, the most that he can get is not the value of that land for shopping purposes but that fraction of the shopping value which represents his chance of being the lucky one to have this shop on that land. If, indeed, in a whole big housing estate there are to be a dozen shops built, he will get that very small fraction of shopping value which is related to his chance of having a shop built on his land in relation to all the other chances of all the other owners. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that.
What, therefore, I have to say to the Committee is that floating value has been to a very large extent eliminated by the 1947 Act; that it certainly would not be desirable or, in my view, practicable to try to legislate to deal with it by the extremely cumbrous method which is indicated here; that it would lead to very long-drawn-out disputes; and it would end up by not compensating the owner on the basis of market value. If com-

pensation on the basis of market value is what the whole Committee desires, then this Amendment cannot be accepted.

Mr. Skeffington: Would the right hon. Gentleman indicate the Amendments he has in mind so that I can study them?

Mr. Brooke: I mean the new Clause (Assumptions as to planning permission), particularly the first part of subsection (3). I think the hon. Gentleman will find the point there.

Mr. Mitchison: As is usual, the right hon. Gentleman is courteous, misguided, and unnecessarily gloomy. A chucker out, as the right hon. Gentleman is, should be more cheerful. On Second Reading of the Bill we pointed out to him that he had thrown the Prime Minister out altogether—chucked him into the pond. We pointed out that what he was doing by the Bill was to get rid of some of the errors into which the Prime Minister had fallen in 1954. He has now added to the contents of the pool no less a person than Mr. Justice Uthwatt, as he then was, and the professional body which advised him about floating value. They have gone by the board, too. They have disappeared, not with an outright splash but by a sort of vanishing process. They have become so small that they can now be neglected. Floating value no longer matters.
Perhaps, in the circumstances, I need not inflict on the right hon. Gentleman again the quotations from paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Uthwatt Report, as, no doubt, he has them in mind. He will remember that what floating value arises would be out of the possible use of a piece of land in the middle of a larger area of land which is being acquired. The owner of the smaller piece of land thinks, as does every other owner of a small piece of land in the middle of the large area, that the more profitable use will alight on his land. That, I think, is a correct and short description of what the surveyors told the Uthwatt Committee and which that Committee accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) was perfectly right in saying that to a limited extent the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the same thing in his own Bill.
I quote from paragraph 15 of the Explanatory Memorandum which deals with


areas of comprehensive development and says:
It would be quite wrong for the acquiring authority to buy one person's land cheap because it is to become (say) part of a road, and the next person's land dear because it is to become (say) part of a departmental store.
That means that, notwithstanding the particular use contemplated in the future—and that is what floating value is concerned with—and notwithstanding the effect that use would have on market value if it were regarded piece by piece, recourse must be had to a larger unit.
Accordingly, the next sentence sets out the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion. It says:
The solution set out in the clause is that in valuing the land account is Lo be taken of the new uses envisaged for the area, but the scheme itself and the proposed distribution of uses is to he ignored.
On the very narrow description of market value which the right hon. Gentleman put forward just now, this would be just as indefensible as he finds the new Clause. The fault is not in the scope of the Clauses but in the right hon. Gentleman's view of market value.
The local authority is buying a piece of land of a certain size—in this case a rather large size worth al least £5,000—and from its point of view it is immaterial whether it buys from 100 owners or from one. Therefore, if we are to be fair—and fairness is what we are trying to obtain—from the local authority's point of view it ought not to be made to pay more, or less, because it is buying from many owners instead of from one. It may affect I he individual owner either way just as it may affect him in the case of an area of comprehensive development, and as the right hon. Gentleman has provided in the Bill.
We say that if we are to be fair we must be fair to both sides. When we arrive at open market value we cannot arrive at what is simply the market value for one person concerned in the transaction without regarding what is the market value for the other person as well. And where any difference between them depends on the size of the area bought and on the number of individual owners, the right way of valuing must be considered. We approach the Uthwatt problem—and this is what that Committee exactly had in mind—from that point of view, and we accept than Committee's

conclusion, based as it then was on the expert opinion of surveyors. I see the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) sitting opposite like the Delphic Sybil, with the Sybilline books before him, either preparing to tell us the date of the General Election or to tell us whether I am wrong in what I am putting forward.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I was exercising my mind on what check there was on the global valuation of the district valuers of the Inland Revenue, because where they are valuing individual property the hon. and learned Member will be aware that the valuer acting for the individual can challenge the valuation. I was wondering, in relation to the Amendment, what check there was on the district valuer's unilateral assessment of the global value.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Member will recollect that it was not the Delphic Sybil but Socrates who was accused of thinking of too lofty things. I will leave to the hon. Member meditation on that subject, which to my untutored mind is not relevant to the principle which I am trying to establish. I have said "my untutored mind" and the hon. Member must not be too hard on me.
6.15 p.m.
The exact point is that which the Uthwatt Committee raised. The Minister said that there was nothing in it nowadays. It was practically all gone. He said it in Standing Committee, and he said that he had Departmental experience behind him. We on this side of the Committee have no Department behind us. We have to grind out our Amendments slowly and learn from the wisdom of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. When he said this in Standing Committee I asked what experience there was behind him, what bearing it had on the question and whether he could give us an instance.
In this respect, the right hon. Gentleman himself was something of a Delphic Oracle. He replied:
I will take note of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman kept the note. Has he found some other use for it, or did he seek out the information for which we asked? A similar


question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) about Scotland, and the right hon. Gentleman replied:
I appreciate that this matter is of interest to Scotland as well as to England and Wales."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, Standing Committee D, 27th November, 1958; c. 48.]
I hope that it is, but we have not had the information yet.
The right hon. Gentleman was asked for the Departmental experience on which he was relying and for a little substance to what he was saying, and we asked him, when replying later, not to repeat what he had said before and to tell us what it amounted to. But we have not been told. I suppose that I have a suspicious mind. My opinion is that the Departmental experience does not bear out the sweeping statements which the right hon. Gentleman made in Standing Committee and which he has repeated today.
If I may put it another way, the right hon. Gentleman has the weight of this impartial, experienced and well-advised Uthwatt Committee and he has not produced any repudiating evidence to show that what it says is wrong in principle. We on this side of the Committee take the view that in the majority of cases, if nothing is done about this, the local authority will get into the same difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman saw in connection with areas of comprehensive development. In fact, the local authority will be made to pay more, simply because everybody will think that their particular area will have a specially useful future use—the old business of floating value—with the result of a higher total value made out of the individual items than there would have been if the area had been taken as a whole.
I agree that if we are to deal with this problem it will involve some more machinery. There is no getting away from that. All I say to the right hon. Gentleman—and I think that he has recognised it—is that we have tried to get out of some of the difficulties which he put against our first Amendment. We have tried to get out of the difficulty inherent in distributing future value by reference to existing value, and to get out of the difficulty which the hon. Member for North Angus put to us in connection with

new towns. We have dropped the new town part of the Amendment altogether and have limited the Amendment to the land authorised to be acquired. That will mean a substantial housing estate, or something of that kind, on the fringes of a large local authority and even, in some cases, on the fringes of a rather small one. The right hon. Gentleman can modify the Amendment as he likes. If he thinks that we allow for too large or too small a purchase, he can vary the figure of £5,000. The point is that the provision is intended to apply to substantial purchases.
I am all for people getting a fair price, but it should be fair to both sides of the bargain. Let the right hon. Gentleman recollect what will be the result of making local authorities pay too much when they are trying to put a new housing estate, or whatever it is, on the outskirts of their town. It will be paid for by two people —those who live in the houses, who will have to pay higher rents, and those who pay rates in the area, who will have to pay higher rates. They are the people concerned in the long run.
Let him remember, too, that there is the more need to be fair because the Parliamentary Secretary told us that hardly any owner-occupiers would be affected by the Bill. Substantially, it is a landlords' Bill, and in a case of this kind the landlord is likely to be, I would not say enormous in the sense of wealth but, at any rate, one with a great many acres in most parts of the country or with valuable land in other parts of the country. Now £5,000 is really something when we are considering site valuation. The hon. Gentleman can put it higher if he likes.
Therefore, what would be done by this Amendment would be to be fair to the ratepayers and the tenants of the council houses. They are the people who will be mostly affected, as against the landowning interests who will, as regards this Bill, be landowners on a large scale. If it is an appeal to fairness on behalf of the man who has fewer resources, I would put up the rent payer and the ratepayer in an ordinary town and in relation to council houses, as just as deserving of consideration as the large landowning interests. who may have bought land for speculative or other purposes on the fringes of the town.
I agree that it necessarily involves some machinery. I do not accept all the right


hon. Gentleman's criticisms, but that is not the real point. The real point is that this is fair as between two parties, and the objection to not accepting this Amendment is that if we are to be unfair nominally to the acquiring authority and practically to the rent payer and ratepayer round about the town, we will be that in favour of what are on the whole largish landowners.

I do not believe that is right and I do not believe that is what we were told was the intention of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Committee on a Division will accept the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 161, Noes 195.

Division No. 69.]
AYES
[6.25 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Hamilton, W. W.
Owen, W. J.


Albu, A. H.
Hannan, W.
Padley, W. E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hastings, S.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hayman, F. H.
Pargiter, G. A.


Benson, Sir George
Healey, Denis
Paton, John


Beswick, Frank
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Pearson, A,


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pentland, N.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hewitson, capt. M.
Popplewell, E.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Prentice, R. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester,S.W.)
Holman, P.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Boyd, T. C.
Holmes, Horace
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Brockway, A. F.
Houghton, Douglas
Probert, A. R.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hoy, J. H.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hunter, A. E.
Randall, H. E.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, G.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Janner, B.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Carmichael, J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Ross, William


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Kenyon, C.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Cliffe, Michael
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Coldrick, W.
Lawson, G. M.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Arthur
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cronin, J. D.
Lindgren, G. S.
Snow, J. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Logan, D. G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sparks, J. A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Spriggs, Leslie


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
MoCann, J.
Stonehouse, John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacColl, J. E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Mclnnes, J.
Sylvester, G. 0.


Diamond, John
MoKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dodds, N. H.
MoLeavy, Frank
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
MaoPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mahon, Simon
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Warbey, W. N.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mason, Roy
Wilkins, W. A.


Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Mellish, R. J.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Foot, D. M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Gibson, C. W.
Mort, D. L.
Woof, R. E.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moss, R.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Greenwood, Anthony
Moyle, A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mulley, F. W.
Zilliacus, K.


Grey, C. F.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)



Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelty)
Oram, A. E.
Mr. Deer and Mr. Short.


Hale, Leslie
Oswald, T.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Barter, John
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel


Aitken, W. T.
Batsford, Brian
Bishop, F. P.


Alport, C. J. M.
Baxter, Sir Beverley
Body, R. F.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Beamish, Col. Tufton
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)


Arbuthnot, John
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)


Armstrong, C. W.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Ashton, H.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Brooman-White, R. C.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Browne, J. Nixon (Cralgton)


Balniel, Lord
Bidgood, J. C.
Bryan, P.




Burden, F. F. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Osborne, C.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Page, R. G.


Channon, H. P. G.
Hobson, John(Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hope, Lord John
Partridge, E.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hornby, R. P.
Peel, W. J.


Cole, Norman
Homsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison. Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Pilklngton, Capt. R. A.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hyde, Montgomery
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pott, H. P.


Corfield, F. V.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, i. Enoch


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rawlinson, Peter


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Redmayne, M.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Remnant, Hon. P.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Kershaw, J. A.
Renton, D. L. M.


Dance, J. C. G.
Kimball, M.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robertson, Sir David


Davies,Rt.Hn.clement(Montgomery)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Robson Brown, Sir William


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Leavey, J. A.
Roper, Sir Harold


Deedes, W. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Russell, R. S.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Sharpies, R. C.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne.N.)
Loveys, Walter H.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Fell, A.
McAdden, S. J.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Finlay, Graeme
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Summers, Sir Spencer


Fisher, Nigel
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Fort, R.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield,W.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Freeth, Denzll
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Temple, John M.


Gammans, Lady
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Garner-Evans, E.H.
Maddan, Martin
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Godber, J. B.
Manningham-Buller, Rt, Hn. Sir R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Goodhart, Philip
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Gough, C. F. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Gower, H. R.
Marshall, Douglas
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Mathew, R.
Vlckers, Miss Joan


Grant, Rt. Hon. w. (Woodside)
Mawby, R. L.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Green, A.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Grimond, J.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Gurden, Harold
Moore, Sir Thomas
Wall, Patrick


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester) Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Webster, David


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Harrison, A, B. C. (Maldon)
Neave, Airey
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nicholls, Harmar
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hay, John
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan



Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Oakshott, H. D.
Mr. Hughes-Young


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)
and Mr. Whitelaw.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, in page 13, line 14, at the end to insert:
(7) Where there is attached to the relevant land an unexpended balance of established development value the amount thereof shall be taken into account in determining market value in accordance with Rule 2 of section two of the Act of 1919.
Even those hon. Members who had not what the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) called the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee—some of us might call it a rather doubtful privilege in view of the time that was taken—will recognise that the intention of the Bill is that market value as determined in terms of Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919,

should supersede the present basis of compensation where land is compulsorily acquired; that is to say, the existing use value plus the amount of the Part VI claim. When I refer to the Part VI claim, I include also the Part V claim relating to Scotland, and when I refer to Section 35 of the 1954 Act, I refer also to Section 36 of the Scottish Act.
What that amounts to for all practical purposes is that the only value of the Part VI or Part V claim for unexpended development value is that it can be claimed in the case of refusal of planning permission. That is all it will be used for in the future. If when the Bill is passed I as a valuer am asked to assess what the market would give for certain


parcels of land, I should naturally take into account whether or not there was a Part VI claim, and I should depress or raise the value according to whether or not there was a claim for loss of development value.
I am not honestly sure whether I should be in order in doing that when the value is required for the specific purpose of valuing land which has to be compulsorily acquired, because where land is to be acquired compulsorily it is taken under the new basis, and, therefore, no question of a Part VI claim arises. It is in order to avoid doubt on this important matter that I seek to ensure that the words which I propose are inserted in the Bill.
The Minister may say one of three things in reply to the Amendment. He may say that it is not his intention that any such assumptions should be made. He may say that the fact that land has a substantial Part VI claim is to be disregarded where it is being compulsorily acquired in future. He may say that because Part VI claims have relevance only to cases where planning permission is refused, it should be disregarded altogether.
If they have worked this out at all, many hon. Members will be aware that a great many people who in future will have their land acquired compulsorily will be worse off under the provisions of the Bill than they would be if they were allowed to claim as they are at the moment for the existing use value of their land plus the Part VI claim or a Section 35 supplement in lieu.

Mr. Sparks: How can they possibly be worse off if they are getting the highest market value for the land?

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I could give many examples. They can be worse off if the land is undeveloped or comparatively little developed and if under the 1947 legislation, as amended by the 1954 Act, the land had a high claim for loss of development value attached to it. In such cases, cases broadly of underdeveloped land with a high Part VI claim and planning permission for a new use which is of very little value—for playing fields, say—there is no doubt that the claimant will be better off under the present position than he will be if the Bill becomes law.
If that is not accepted, I can give examples. Let us take the example of an acre of agricultural land with an existing use value of, say, £80 and an unexpended development value of £1,480. This is an actual example. The development value of £1,480 was calculated on the basis that the land had some potential high value, because it could have been used for industrial purposes as it was adjoining an industrial area. The assumption is that this land is to be acquired for housing development.
Under the terms of the 1954 Act the vendor will get £80 as the existing use value for agricultural purposes and the unexpended development value of £1,480. In addition he will receive interest of £211, which in this case is calculated at 7½ per cent in accordance with the terms of the 1954 Act. These three elements together total £1,771. If the Bill is carried through, the market value, having regard to the certified planning permission for housing purposes in terms of Clause 4(1), will be about £750. No unexpended balance of development values can be added and the compensation will therefore be £750 as against £1,771. These are factual examples, but I hope I am wrong as to the intention of the Government. I hope that what the Government mean is that in valuing the land the valuer shall have regard to any Part VI claim attached to the land.
I said that I thought my right hon. Friend might give three answers to the Amendment. I will deal with the first answer which I said might be that this was not intended at all. If it is not intended—and the avowed purpose of the Bill is to pay fair compensation to owners of land which is compulsorily acquired—we ought not to legislate in a way which would leave uncertainty in the minds of owners as to whether they will receive less than they would under the present circumstances.

Mr. Sparks: It would be asking for more than the market value, which is not fair in the light of the passage of time.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: We ought to make sure that the market value includes the unexpended portion of the Part VI claim. It is to avoid doubt that I want that to be made clear.
The second thing that my right hon. Friend might say is that it is the intention


that this very thing shall happen, that the valuer in making his assessment of the market value ought to take into account the figure of the Part. VI claim which attaches to the latter. If my right hon. Friend does intend that to be the case—as I think he does we ought to be clear about the very useful phrase imported from the 1947 Act—and which has been used in legislation before" for avoidance of doubt". If my right hon. Friend does not like the Amendment because those words are not in it, I would be happy if he indicated that he sees the point but would like to add some such words as "for avoidance of doubt".
6.45 p.m.
In answering the first Amendment my right hon. Friend said that there was a need for a set of rules. I did not intervene in that debate because I agree that there is a need for a set of rules by which valuers can be guided. Many assumptions have to be made and it is right that rules should be laid down in the Bill. My right hon. Friend said—and I took down his exact words—that "uncertainty should be avoided as far as possible". There is uncertainty in the minds of valuers over what is intended about these Part VI claims.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is proposing that the acquiring authority should pay something for this element which he describes as belonging to open market value. Can the hon. Gentleman indicate how he proposes that the acquiring authority should realise this unexpended balance of development value? He ought to explain that. Apparently they will be paying for something which can be of no real value to them.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I am not suggesting that the acquiring authority should pay more than the market value. In. Rule 2 under Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919, it is to be assumed that the term "market value" shall include any Part VI claim which may become lodged against the land.

Mr. Irvine: Surely there is still a question to answer. If "market value" includes the unexpended balance and the acquiring authority pays the market value, it means they are paying for that unexpended balance. What can they do with it? What use is it to them?

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Surely the hon. and learned Member realises that if the acquiring authority wants the land it ought to be prepared to buy it at a fair market value.

Mr. Irvine: I am suggesting that we ought to be enlightened as to whether market value should or should not include a Part VI claim for this purpose.

Mr. Sparks: It should not.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: That might be the division between us.
The third thing my right hon. Friend might say is that while he agrees, as I hope he does, that the Part VI claims should be included in the compensation which the market will give for any piece of land under consideration by the valuers, yet to insert a specific reference to one particular element in the valuation of that land would be to cast doubt upon other matters to which specific reference has not been made.
I have known that line of argument advanced before by Ministers seeking to defeat a proposition of this kind. If there are any other aspects of valuation left in as unprecise a position as is this, they ought to be picked out and put in the Bill. Nothing could be quite as unprecise as this, and it is to avoid doubt that I have moved the Amendment.

Mr. James McInnes: The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) has put a number of hypothetical questions to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I do not know what reply the Joint Under-Secretary will make, but I do know what my reply would be. Candidly, it is absolutely impertinent of the hon. Member to suggest that acquiring authorities ought to be made to pay additional money for something which is of no use to them. It is no answer for the hon. Member to say that an acquiring authority need not acquire the land concerned. The hon. Member wants all the benefits and all the advantages of legislation preceding the Bill, that is, the advantages of all the legislation back to 1919—

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The Bill is based on that.

Mr. McInnes: I know, but the hon. Member is not content with the Bill; he


also wants the highest form of compensation ever known in the history of land acquisition to be paid.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: The hon. Member might care to look at the Land Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845.

Mr. McInnes: I could go back to that, but I shall content myself with dealing with the Bill. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns wants all the advantages under the 1947 Act, where the basis was existing use value, to be applied to the high current market value of today. This is a piece of impertinence, and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will deal very firmly with it.

Mr. Corfield: I support the Amendment, but not on the same grounds as those of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley). To judge from the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), there is a good deal of misunderstanding about what the unexpended balance is.
When this matter was raised in Committee, in another context, my right hon. Friend put forward the view that the unexpended balance would be a factor taken into account in the ordinary process of practical valuation, for compensation or anything else. Since my right hon. Friend made that statement I have had a number of letters from valuers, entirely unsolicited, to the effect that they would not agree that that was the case.
What we are asking my right hon. Friend to do is precisely what he has done in a new Clause in which, having said in the White Paper that there was no need to make provision for existing planning provisions—with which I Agree because they are for the benefit of the land—presumably for the avoidance of doubt, he is now making those provisions. We are asking him to do precisely the same thing in a matter which appears to be open to doubt in the minds of valuers.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns was worried about people getting less under the present Bill than under the present system. I cannot say that that will give me sleepless nights, so long as they get fair value. If the anomalies of the provisions were such that they got more than fair value, I should not worry very much.
The trouble arises from the fact that the unexpended balance is the compensation for the loss of development rights under the 1947 Act, after various adjustments have been made under the 1954 legislation. The difficulties arise, for instance, where there are two pieces of land in different occupation but having precisely the same unexpended balance. One owner may apply for planning permission and be refused, in which case he would get compensation for loss of development rights up to a ceiling dictated by the amount of the unexpended balance. There is no question of asking the acquiring authority to pay for something it does not want. It does that when it compensates for loss of planning permission.
In the other case, there might be compulsory acquisition with a certificate under Clause 4 stating that in the opinion of the local planning authority there would be no permission for any development other than the relatively valueless development for which the acquiring authority wished to acquire the land. The owner of the development rights would thus be deprived of those rights which are represented by the curious formula of the unexpended balance.
I suggest that there would be a considerable anomaly because in one case the man refused planning permission would get the sum, and if the land were subsequently acquired that would be taken into account, while in the other case he would not get that sum and would be that much worse off.
The Amendment is designed to avoid doubt. If my right hon. Friend is satisfied that this matter is already taken into account, as I submit it should be, there can be no harm in including such a provision in the Bill.

Mr. Sparks: This proposal is outrageous. The very purpose of the Bill, of which the Clause is an important part, is to establish a new basis of compensation for the acquisition of land by local authorities. The case for that is that the existing basis is unfair. The existing basis is the 1947 use value of the land plus the development value of the unexpended balance, plus one-seventh.
The argument for removing that basis is that it was unfair and that it was necessary to establish a fair basis. However, we believe that the proposed basis


is not fair to the public interest. It was intended to establish market value as the basis, but hon. Members opposite now want to have the best of both bases. Where the 1947 compensation figure would be higher, they prefer that to the 1959 compensation figure.

Mr. Corfield: I do not think the hon. Member understands the argument. It is quite clear that where the certified or assumed planning permission is for a development of considerable value this question does not arise. It is only in cases where there is an assumed planning permission which deprives a man of his development rights to which he had established a claim under the 1947 Act that this provision applies.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Sparks: I have heard that, and I also heard what the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) said. He put a somewhat different complexion upon the Amendment than that which the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) did.

Mr. Corfield: I am right.

Mr. Sparks: I am not so sure that the hon. Member is right, because the new basis which the Bill intends to establish is completely to supersede the 1947 basis, because of its general unfairness. It is important to remember that in 1947, when this basis of compensation was laid down, there were no such things as development plans. It was the Act of 1947 which created them and which thereafter designated areas of land for certain specific uses. When compensation on the 1947 basis was established and claims had to be made by the owners for loss of development value, that value was not based upon any plan because no such plans existed.
The hon. Member for North Angus referred to a specific case and said that it was assumed that a development value of about £1,450 attached to the piece of land because it was not far from an industrial development. But there could not have been a development plan in existence.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: That was a specific case where it was agreed. The Amendment applies only to established

development values under Part VI —or, in other words, agreed values.

Mr. Sparks: But it was agreed and accepted for a totally different purpose. It was agreed in order to determine a claim to which the owner of the land was entitled on the global compensation figures. It had no relationship to planning as we know it now. Since 1947 we have had development plans, and presumably the piece of land about which the hon. Member is talking is planned not for industrial but for residential purposes. The local authority proceeding to acquire it would therefore have to pay compensation based not upon what it was thought would be its development in 1947 but what is now included in a development plan for residential purposes.
When we assess the question of market value and compensation we must have regard to the passing of time. The basis that we are now supplanting was established twelve years ago, and it may be that in some cases the unexpended balance in 1947 would be lower than the market value established under the Bill. Which of the two figures are local authorities to be called upon to pay? They will be called upon to pay the higher figure, as established by the Bill, based on market value, and not the lower figure which would have been established on the basis of the 1947 claim. To be fair, if we are to say, "In cases where the 1947 claim was a higher figure than the compensation established under the Bill in 1959 the local authority should pay the higher figure," we ought also to say that where the reverse is the case local authorities should pay the lower of the two figures. But that would not meet the intentions of hon. Members opposite.
I hope that the Minister will resist the Amendment. I do not see how he can do anything else. It may be the intention of the Government to establish a fair market price, based upon the market value for the acquisition of land, but the Government cannot do that and at the same time tie down the market value to a lot of propositions and considerations which produce no market value. The less we endanger the matter with prohibitions, inhibitions, restrictions and additions of all kinds the more likely we are to arrive at a fair and equitable figure of compensation for the acquisition of land.
The hon. Member is trying to jerrymander this situation and w rite into market value something more than ought reasonably to be written into it. He is trying to tie down valuers, and to provide that they shall not be free to assess what is a reasonable figure but must take into consideration the question whether, in 1947, the claim on the fund would have produced more for the owner than would be produced for him under the Bill, and that if it would have produced more they must include it in their calculations and call it the market price.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I hope that the hon. Member will recognise that at present there is no question but that valuers have regard to Part VI claims in making their valuations. The only question is whether they are to be required to do so under the Bill. I say that they should be in order to remove any doubt.

Mr. Sparks: If they are all doing it there is no need for this provision and the hon. Member does not need the Amendment. But if the unexpended balance of development value based upon the 1947 assessment is to be included in the assessment of market value, it makes the Bill more outrageous than ever. It is a first-class public scandal. This matter requires a little more investigation than it appears to have had, and we shall be very anxious to hear what the Minister has to say about it. I am sure that there is no public justification for introducing, into this concept of market value values based upon the 1947 standards which were arrived at for a totally different purpose.
I hope that the Committee will reject the proposal because of its unfairness and the inequitable effect it must have upon local authorities who need land for public purposes.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: We shall be interested to hear the reaction of the Minister to this proposal. I admit that in the open market the unexpended balance of development value may be an element in the market value. But it is an element only to the extent that the purchaser is getting something which he can realise. The point is that it may not have any advantage to the purchaser if the purchaser is a local authority. That is the major objection.
If I may put the same point in another way, I would say that where the assump-

tions as to planning permissions are such and such, and the purposes for which the land is being required are such and such, the result of the Amendment may be that the acquiring authority will pay a higher figure in the market for this element of market value, on the basis that it is an element in the market value, when it may be of no value to the authority whatsoever. That seems to be the fundamental objection here and the reason why we should listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say.
It is quite possible that one of the difficulties into which we run in these matters, if we choose a concept like open market value, is that there are elements operating in the open market which have no kind of reference to what the acquiring authority may desire to do with the land. I certainly think that it is very undesirable that, in addition to the price of compulsory acquisition, there should be paid any sum of money in respect of an asset which the acquiring authority is wholly incapable of realising.

Mr. Bevins: I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley), is professionally very well versed in the subject we are debating, but I should like to say to him at the start that many of the aspects of the Bill have been referred to the various professional associations, including the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Chartered Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Institute and Land Agents Society, and so forth, and that none of these organisations has made any comment at all on this point. Having said that, I should add that I could well understand that there may be a little doubt, perhaps on both sides of the Committee, about what the Government here intend, and I should like briefly to put a clearer complexion on this topic.
As I understand it, what my hon. Friends are trying to do is to say that, in determining market value in accordance with Rule 2 of the 1919 Act rules—that is to say, in arriving at the price which a willing seller may expect to receive in the open market—the amount of any unexpended balance of development value attached to the relevant land is to be taken into account. The words in the Amendment are
to be taken into account.


Those words do not go as far as one or two hon. Members may have thought. The position, shortly, is that when land to which an unexpended balance is attached is sold in the open market the purchase price takes into account—I emphasise the words again—the right to receive compensation within the limit of the unexpended balance on the refusal of planning permission.
Rule 2 of the 1919 Act rules, which are, of course, applied by Clause 1 of the Bill, provides for the valuation of land as if it was being sold in the open market by a willing seller. Therefore, where land is being valued under the Bill, the unexpended balance will be taken into account, and there is no need to provide anything to that effect in the Bill. To that extent, the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend is unnecessary, but there are two things which I ought to add to that.
The first is that it is the case that compensation for planning refusal may he liable in certain cases to fall short of the, unexpended balance. That would happen if the depreciation in value caused by any refusal of planning permission is less than the amount of the balance; that is to say, if the development value today or next year happened to be less than the development value in 1947. Quite clearly, there is a possibility of this. I am not saying that it would be so, but that it is possible in certain cases. It would have to be taken into account by the valuer in arriving at the value of the land, but, of course, this would be equally true in respect of my hon. Friend's Amendment, which says that the amount of the unexpended balance is to be
taken into account in determining the market value in accordance with Rule 2.
7.15 p.m.
Finally, I should like to add that if there is any suggestion—and I do not know quite clearly whether this was in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus—that the whole of the unexpended balance should be paid, irrespective of whether a purchaser in the open market would have done the same, I am bound to say that that is a suggestion which could not seriously be entertained. We could not go on to provide that the whole of the unexpended balance should be paid whether a purchaser in the open market would have done the same or not. That

is a point on which we should not be able to say that full 1947 development value should be paid in addition to existing use value.
My hon. Friends will appreciate that that would involve the payment in certain cases of a figure in excess of market value. I do not think, with all respect to my hon. Friends, that there is any serious doubt on this matter. If there were, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be prepared to examine it again, but, having done so, he feels that, with the support of the professional organisations, we have got the provisions in the Bill right. I therefore very much hope that my hon. Friends will not be disposed to press the matter.

Mr. MacColl: This all goes to show that if we trust a reasonable valuer we get the right answer, as we suggested earlier on.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman dealt with the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). If, in fact, the unexpended development claim is taken into account by the acquiring authority which buys it, what is it buying? Is it something which it can realise? That is the point which my hon. and learned Friend wanted to have cleared up.

Mr. Bevins: I beg the pardon of the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) for not answering his question. The simple answer to that question is that the acquiring authority is paying market value for the land, and that consideration must be taken into account by the valuer. Quite shortly, what happens is that in assessing the compensation the valuer, quite clearly, should not exclude—that is to say, he should "take account of," as the Amendment says—the fact that if planning permission for certain classes of development were to be refused the owner of the land to be compulsorily acquired would have had a chance of obtaining compensation within the limit of the unexpended balance. That is one of the elements which goes to make up market value.

Mr. MacColl: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has helped us. If a private sale is taking place, the purchaser of the claim has got a chit of paper and can trot along with that to the office, cash it and get


something for it. Indeed, that is why he bought it. He bought a claim which he can realise, but what I think my hon. and learned Friend wants to know is what the acquiring authority has bought.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I think this very difficult, and I should like some assistance. When a private owner has this unexpended balance he possesses the advantage that if there is a subsequent refusal of permission to develop he gets compensation out of the balance. An acquiring authority cannot obtain compensation in that sense or of that kind, nor does it receive anything parallel to it. What, therefore, is the acquiring authority getting when it pays for this unexpended balance? It may be true that it is the market value, but is this not a striking example of the market value being an unfair value to claim?

Mr. Bevins: As I tried to say earlier, in such a case an acquiring authority is paying market value, and one of the elements in that value is this element. There is no anomaly between the position of a private purchaser and an acquiring authority.

Mr. Sparks: I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman confirm some of the fears I expressed about the Amendment. He said that where the unexpended balance of the 1947 development charge proved to be more than the market value that was what a private purchaser would pay; therefore, not the higher price but the market value would be paid. That covers the point I was trying to make. I do not agree that the unexpended balance of the 1947 development value should be wholly taken into consideration, because that would be most unfair.
If we are changing the basis of compensation from one form to another, there ought to be a clear break in order to establish a basis which could be regarded as reliable. Continually to hark back to something which occurred in 1947 for a totally different purpose does not make possible the creation of a sound and favourable basis on which to arrive at a reasonable figure of compensation. I take comfort from the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary said that where the unexpended balance proved to be much more than otherwise would be paid in a fair market obviously the lower of the two figures would be the one which would

be accepted. That is reasonable so far as it goes.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Had I wished the Government to legislate in such a way as to give the better of two worlds to the owners of land which in future might be compulsorily acquired; had I wished that such an owner should get either compensation under the present arrangements or under the new arrangements—whichever was the higher —I should have moved a straightforward Amendment to Clause 1 to that effect. But that is not what I want. I do not want anyone to get a higher value than the fair market value. I do not wish, and neither do my hon. Friends, to make any provision as a result of which an element would be added to the fair market value, being the amount or part of the amount, of the Part VI claim which exists at present. I hope I have made that clear. I hope I may make it clearer by drawing attention again to the words in the Amendment to which attention has already been drawn by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary—"shall be taken into account." I want no more and no less than that.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary says that the unexpended balance will be taken into account.

Mr. Sparks: But not if it is more.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: There have been six speeches by hon. Members on this Amendment, and it was not made clear in those speeches that it was intended that the unexpended balance should be taken into account. Those speeches were made by hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee which considered this Bill during 28 sittings, and therefore those hon. Members may be considered as sort of experts in this matter.

Mr. Ross: No.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: But if there is a division of opinion among six hon. Members who have been "soaking" themselves for weeks in the provisions of this Bill, how much more will there be confusion among valuers who have to interpret its provisions?

Mr. Irvine: The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for North Angus has had the effect of bringing into the open what appears to many of us to be a concealed enormity.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I am all for having enormities brought to light. If there are enormities let us be clear about them and be satisfied that they have been dealt with. I plead with my right hon. Friend to look at this matter again to see whether, for the avoidance of doubt, it would be wise to say that the unexpended balance will be taken into consideration. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said that, and it is on the record. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, let us have it in the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move, in page 13, line 35, at the end to insert:
(8) In the application of this section to Scotland, subsection (4) shall have effect as if there were inserted at the end thereof the following proviso, that is to say,—
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect the amount which is to be taken as the amount of the compensation for the purposes of section sixty-two of the Scottish Act of 1954 (which relates to the consideration payable for the discharge of land from feu-duty and other incumbrances)".
This Amendment seeks to add to the Clause a subsection referring to Scotland for the purpose of consistency with existing legislation and fairness to the parties concerned. Its object is to secure that the calculation of the superior's consideration under Section 62 of the 1954 Act is not to be affected by any set-oft which may be applied under subsections (3) and (4) of the Clause to the owner's interest, that is to the vassal's interest.
The object of Section 62 of the 1954 Act is to relate the consideration to the unburdened value of the land over which the superiority is secured. Incidentally, its effect in many cases was severely to limit the amount payable for buying out the right to receive feu duties in perpetuity. But the main object was to relate it to the value of the land over which the superiority is secured.
As Clause 8 is at present drafted, the compensation attributable to the feuar's interest, which would figure in the calculations required for Section 62, would be the value of the land after it had been adjusted by setting off the increase in value of any adjacent land also owned by the feuar. As I said, the feu duty to be paid is secured on the land. The

value of that land is the value before the set-off is applied. We believe it right that the fact that the feuar is to enjoy betterment on some other land should influence the compensation the feuar is to get for the land to be acquired, but it would be most unfair to the superior if it were to influence the consideration he was to receive in respect of the loss of his right to feu duty in perpetuity from the land actually to be acquired. With that explanation I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Willis: That was one of the most painful explanations I have listened to for some time. The Joint Under-Secretary was at great pains to tell us what the Amendment meant. He ended up by telling us or suggesting to us what the new proposed subsection would achieve, which was that the land superior of the adjacent land would not suffer any loss in value of his feu.—[Interruption.]—that was what he suggested—

Mr. Macpherson: He does not suffer any loss in his feu as a result of the setoff due to land which does not belong to him and over which he has no rights whatsoever, that is, adjacent land, which has nothing to do with him.

Mr. Willis: Even if the land does not belong to him, why should there be a reduction? All that the Under-Secretary did was to suggest that it would be unfair, but I cannot see why it would be unfair. Why would it be unfair? Up to the moment the Under-Secretary has not told us that. All he has told us is the effect. Could he now finish his speech and then we might be able to engage in debate? Would he tell us why it would be unfair?

Mr. McInnes: Before the Joint Under-Secretary finishes his speech, may I ask him a few questions? As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said, the hon. Gentleman stated that in calculating the superior interest there would be no set-off, as it were, as the result of land that did not actually belong to the land superior? How does that individual become a superior of land that does not belong to him? Would the Under-Secretary explain to us precisely the justification for the consideration in respect of feu duties


and other incumbrances? He endeavoured to enlighten us on feu duties ground annuals and other incumbrances which are peculiar to Scotland; will he explain the justifications for these other incumbrances for compensation to the land superior?
What the hon. Gentleman is asking is that the consideration should be paid in respect of the discharge of the land from feu duty and other incumbrances. At least, that is the effect of Section 62 of the 1954 Scottish Act. That Section relates to the amount of consideration that has to be paid in respect of discharging the land from feu duty, ground annuals and other incumbrances. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is generally quid; off the mark in understanding some of the most incomprehensible jargon of this kind but now, like myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), he is absolutely flabbergasted at the explanation given by the Joint Under-Secretary of State.
We are entitled to have this matter explained to us in a very simple fashion, and not merely explained from the brief presented to the Under-Secretary of State by the Scottish Office. I do not know whether the Solicitor-General for Scotland or the Lord Advocate helped to prepare the brief, but we should have a degree of sympathy for those who are not in the legal profession. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will take his time and will explain precisely to us why he wants to safeguard the interests of the ground superior in respect of feu duty, ground annual and other incumbrances.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I do not wish to follow up the points of detail in the Amendment, but since it is the first appearance, if I may put it this way, of my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in the 3 Committee since we came back to the Floor of the House after the long Committee stage, I would ask him a question. We have made a number of Amendments in the law as it applies to Scotland. Can my hon. Friend add anything to What was told us by the Secretary of Slate for Scotland about the Government's intention to make Scottish law more intelligible in Scotland?

Mr. Ross: After that speech Mr. Storey, I cannot possibly be out of order in anything I say. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) said that I was flabbergasted. The expression is not too strong. I do not want to be insulting in my references to the Under-Secretary of State, but all sorts of questions arise out of what he said.
Either the Under-Secretary of State did not understand what he was saying or he was being very slick and was trying to put one or two things across. According to the case he put, there are two contiguous pieces of land, and the owner of one piece and the owner of the other. By "owner" in Scotland we mean the person who has the right to use the land. Above the owner is what we call the "land superior" whose great purpose in life is merely to collect feu duty, an annual payment. It does not matter who owns the land or what happens to it; the annual payment must go on.
Where anyone is acquiring the land and tries to commute that annual payment into a sum of money which will free the land from the annual payment, Section 62 of the 1954 Act lays down a formula based upon a compensation payment in respect of the land which is being acquired. It is a simple arithmetical calculation of the sum of money to be paid to free the land of the burden of the annual payment. The Under-Secretary put a case in which the land superior of contiguous land had no interest at all in the other piece of land. That is begging an awful lot of questions. There is nothing in the Amendment which says that. The land superior in the one case can be the land superior in the other. The Under-Secretary of State has gone to great trouble in the Bill to ensure that the land superior is dragged in all the time, in order to ensure that his interests are considered.
The one individual might be the land superior in one case but the owner of the contiguous land. Does the Under-Secretary think that the same principles should apply in that case? If we are dealing with a simple arithmetical formula what difference does it make? We get back to this hypothetical case in which the actual calculation does not


meet the sum of money payable in compensation. We have not been very convinced by the explanation and we must be told about it again. It is always delightful to hear the hon. Gentleman's voice.
I am certainly not convinced that it is just that this change should be dragged in at this point. Certainly if the land superior is the same person in each case as well as the owner, I do not think there is any justification for it at all. There is the case where the person may have an interest as an owner and as a land superior. I do not think these cases were put by the Under-Secretary. He gave the impression that this was an example of a poor land superior who had no connection with the contiguous piece of land and whose case was to be decided unfairly, in some way which we could not understand, because the pieces of land were owned by the same person. I hope that the Under-Secretary, or the Solicitor-General for Scotland, will address himself to this point, which still concerns us.

Mr. Willis: I rise again because previously I sat down in order to give the Joint Under-Secretary an opportunity to explain the Clause. The new subsection which he has proposed to Clause 8 applies to subsections (3) and (4). Subsection (3) says:
The provisions of the next following subsection shall have effect where on the date of service of the notice to treat the person entitled to the relevant interest is also entitled in the same capacity to an interest in other land contiguous or adjacent to the relevant land.
The subsections to which we are asked to add this proviso deal with a person who has the same interest in both pieces land. What is the hon. Gentleman trying to protect? The case he quoted was of someone with a superior interest in one piece of land and a different superior in the neighbouring piece of land.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Mr. N. Macpherson indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman might have thought he said something different, but that was the case he quoted. If that is to what the new proviso is addressed, the question remains, why should the feu superior be treated in any way different from the landowner? I do not think that the Joint Under-Secretary completed his speech because he never addressed himself to that. The hon. Gentleman never gave reasons why that person should be

treated differently. He said that someone should not suffer because a piece of land belonging to someone else was benefited. That does not make sense. Now that he is to give a justification for this Amendment, I wonder if he will explain that point.
The second thing I want to say is why, if we accept the speech of the hon. Gentleman that the real purpose of the proviso is to safeguard the superior of an adjacent piece of land from any effects which might result from the superior of the relevant land having benefited, it is not put in the new proviso which we are asked to accept. That is not in the proviso.
If what the hon. Gentleman offered as an explanation in the first place is the correct one, he ought to amend this one. In the first place, he suggested that what he was seeking to protect was the superior of an adjoining piece of land from any ill effects as a result of the superior of the relevant land benefiting. If that is so, and I concede that there might be a case for putting that in to avoid confusion, why does the proviso not say so? The proviso simply says that in relation to subsections (3) and (4) it must be the same person who is affected. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now endeavour to explain with greater clarity than he did before.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. N. Macpherson: In view of the many long discussions we had upstairs about the superior and in view of the fact that as I look around me I see that the personnel in this Committee at the moment is almost identical with what it was in Committee upstairs, I did not think it really necessary to go over the same points and make the same kind of explanation as I made on the previous occasion.
In reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I should say that the relevant interest does not include the superior. The relevant interests are those of people who have a right to compensation, whereas the superior as such has no right to compensation. He has the right to consideration. I hope I did not mislead the hon. Member by what I said. What I meant to imply when I intervened was simply that it was


not necessary that, because two neighbouring pieces of land were in the same ownership, they had the same superior.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that no doubt I would raise another hypothetical case. I can explain this matter only by reference to hypothetical cases. Perhaps I might be allowed to give a hypothetical case to illustrate what would happen. Cases where unfairness can arise are those where the amount set off is greater than the burdened value of the land, in other words, where it is greater than the feuar's compensation. That is where the hardship might arise to the superior.
I will give an example. Suppose there was a property worth £500 burdened with a feu duty of £10 and that was acquired, with the result that adjacent land in the feuar's ownership increased in value by £400. Taking the feu duty at £10 and assuming that the capitalised value was £200, we get the result that under the Bill as at present drafted the feuar would receive the burdened value of the land, which would be £300 diminished by the set off of £400. In other words, he would receive nothing at all in that case and his net compensation would be nil, or nominal.
The superior's consideration, on the other hand, under Section 62 would be the difference between the net value above and the unburdened net value. We said that the appreciation of the neighbouring land was £400, so that leaves £100 instead of £200. Under the Amendment, the feuar would receive the same compensation as before because he enjoys the set-off, he enjoys the benefit of the appreciation of the adjacent land. Therefore, it is reasonable that there should be set-off, whereas the superior's consideration would be the difference between the burdened value before set-off, which is £300, and the unburdened value, which is £500. In that case he would get the capitalised value of his feu.
I am asked why he should be treated differently? There is one very essential difference between the position of the superior and the position of the feuar. In the case of the superior the re is no possibility of betterment of the land and of his ever getting more than the feu duty payable in perpetuity. He cannot get more

than that in any circumstances and he cannot in any circumstances get mare than the capitalised value of that feu. That is the essential difference from the feuar.

Mr. McInnes: Would the hon. Gentleman explain precisely what might be the capitalised value of the feu in the event of his disposing of it? Surely he could get a terrific rake-off in that way alone?

Mr. Macpherson: Indeed, no. Anyone purchasing the feu will simply continue to receive the rate which he received, of £10, in perpetuity and he will then pay what is the appropriate amount to pay for an annuity of £10 in perpetuity.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock presumed that I would produce hypothetical examples. Let me give him some actual examples—because he asked for them at an earlier stage of the Bill—as to what is happening. We have collected some information in this respect.

Mr. Ross: It is about time.

Mr. Macpherson: Let us take, for example, cases in Glasgow where the superiorities and ground annuals were acquired in advance of the property being made over free to the local authority. There were some 100 cases in that survey where the value was under £50. The average in those cases was six years' purchase and the feus in those 100 cases where the value was between £50 and £100 was an average of four and one-third years' purchase, whereas the normal capitalised value of the feu would be 16 to 20 years' purchase. That illustrates the effect of Section 62 of the 1954 Act on the value of purchases because—I say this again because it is important—it is related to the value of the land.

Mr. Ross: Now that we have not hypothetical cases but actual cases, I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to give us a little of the history of these matters. He said that the actual feu duty was purchased at six years' purchase in one case and four and one-half years in another. Can he tell us whether any feu duty had been paid at all in those cases?

Mr. Macpherson: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that. The whole point is that the payment that was made was related to the value of the land. That is


the important thing. There are not only cases where the feu has been made over free to the local authority; I have here cases where superiorities and ground annuals were acquired in advance of the acquisition of the property. There were fifteen cases. Here it was seven and one-third years for values under £50 and eight and one-third years for values upwards of that amount. In another case, the superiorities and ground annuals in a comprehensive development area, it was eight and one-quarter years' purchase. Of the ground annuals purchased some were good and some were in respect of poor tenements, shops and workshops but the value was ten years' purchase.

Mr. McInnes: The hon. Gentleman has quoted examples where the purchase has been for eight years, seven and one-half years or seven years and the local authorities on occasion have had to acquire on the basis of 25 or 30 years' purchase.

Mr. Macpherson: That was before the 1954 Act was passed. The hon. Gentleman at an earlier stage in Committee himself quoted examples where the value which he said the superiors themselves put on the property was something like £700 and where the actual amount paid was about £70. That shows how the 1954 Act operates. Since Section 62 of the 1954 Act related the consideration payable to the superior to the value of the land over which the feu duty was secured, it should be to that land only and to the value of that land that the superior's consideration should be related.
That is why, in order to ensure consistency with the 1954 Act, this Amendment has had to be proposed. We are coining to another Amendment in a moment which has very much the same effect. In that connection, it might be desirable, by way of illustration, for me to refer now to Section 62 (7) of the 1954 Act, which states:
Subject to the next following subsection references in this section to the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the dominium utile in any such land shall be construed as references to such compensation exclusive of any compensation for disturbance or for severance or injurious affection.
This is really a similar case. That is a payment which was made outside and not related to the actual value of the land, just as in this case the set-off for the im-

provement in the value of adjacent land is not related to the actual value of this land and therefore not consistent with the purposes of the 1954 Act.

Mr. Willis: It is extremely difficult for us as laymen to try to follow this, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. This is very technical and very involved. I cannot quite follow it. The hon. Gentleman has been giving us a large number of cases of unfairness to the land superior of feus being bought for three and a half years' purchase, six years, and four and one-third years, but the Amendment does not do anything to alter that. The Amendment says:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect the amount which is to be taken as the amount of the compensation for the purposes of section sixty-two of the Scottish Act of 1954 …
This does not change it at all, as I read it.

Mr. Macpherson: I was not suggesting for one moment that the fact that these payments were less than the full capitalised value of the feu duty represented unfairness.

Mr. Willis: What was the point of it?

Mr. Macpherson: The point is that the maximum payment that can be made to the superior is limited to the value of the land. It would surely be wrong to reduce the value of the land by set-off in the way I have already explained, because that has nothing to do with the actual value of the land on which the feu duty is secured.
The effect of that, in the sort of cases that I have cited, might be to reduce the capitalised value that would be paid for the extinction of the feu duty to below what it would be if it were related purely to the value of the land. In the view of the Government it should be related purely to the value of the land over which it is secured, and that would be consistent with the purposes of the 1954 Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. ThorntonKemsley) drew attention to the fact that this was another application Clause and asked what was the intention about reenactment. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock put this question to me earlier. I was not able to answer it at that time. There is no doubt—I think we recognised this at an earlier stage—


that a Great Britain Measure with applications such as these would, in some ways be inconvenient to Scottish users. We discussed this earlier and, on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend said that consideration would be given to the introduction of a re-enacting Bill in Scottish terms after the present Bill had reached the Statute Book.
8.0 p.m.
I think that it would b for the convenience of the Committee if I were now to say that that consideration has been given, and I can now definitely state that the Government intend to promote a reenacting Bill immediately this Bill receives the Royal Assent. The reenacting Bill will be in Scottish terms and will contain everything in this Bill which applies to Scotland. It is desirable that the re-enacting Bill should be passed as quickly as possible through all its stages so as to avoid any significant interval of time during which Scottish users will have to concern themselves with the Great Britain Act. I am sure that both sides will co-operate for that purpose.

Mr. Mitchison: Can the Minister tell me whether there will be a corresponding re-enactment of the English part without the Scottish allusions?

Mr. Macpherson: Since the substantive part is in English terms and the difficulty arises because of the application subsections in Scottish terms, I hope that it will be possible for English lawyers, as they have often done before, to read their Act disregarding the Scottish application subsections.

Mr. McInnes: Does the Joint Under-Secretary of State, after making this statement, now recognise the validity of the demand made during the Second Reading debate when we asked for the complete exclusion of Scotland from the Bill and for a separate Bill for Scotland? It is rather late in the day to come forward with a compromise now, after he has had all the legal fraternity of Scotland vigorously protesting about the action of the Government in spatchcocking Scottish legislation into an English Bill. Will the hon. Gentleman now have the humility to confess to the Committee that we were right in our demand on Second Reading?

Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend recognised that there would be inconveniences. He recognised that during the Second Reading debate, and he gave an undertaking that the Government would consider re-enacting the Bill in Scottish terms. I am now telling the Committee that the Government intend to do so. The re-enacting Bill, of course, will effect no further amendment of the law. Both Houses will be asked to have it referred for examination to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
I must make it clear, since the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) has raised this point, that I do not wish to leave the impression that any precedent of general application is being established either by the introduction of the present Bill in Great Britain form or by the decision to re-enact subsequently in Scottish terms. The appropriate form of legislation in any particular case must always be a question of judgment based on the circumstances of the particular Measure under consideration.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Royle. I had hoped that the Joint Under-Secretary of State would make a short statement, and I hoped that that statement would not be at all controversial. I appreciate that what he has done is to have his hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) ask a "stooge" question and then, just as a matter of accident, he finds he has two or three pages of a prepared reply just handy on this important point. I should like to know whether we humble backbenchers will be able to take up points which we think worthy of question in respect of this statement and to ask questions in relation to what has been said, which is important but which, I am sorry to say, has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment we are discussing.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Royle): The House is in Committee. Provided what the Joint Under-Secretary has been saying is in order, hon. Members will have their opportunity to speak again.

Mr. Macpherson: I am much obliged to you for that Ruling, Mr. Royle.

Mr. Willis: Further to that point of order. Surely, the question is whether or not all this is in order, and whether


such a statement should not be made at some more convenient and suitable time. It has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: Further to that point of order. We are here dealing with an Amendment relating to feu duty. What we have had is a statement about the Government's intention to re-enact the Bill in Scottish terms. I suggest that it would be far better and tidier from the point of view of everyone if the announcement were made as a statement and we had the usual courtesy of being able to ask supplementary questions to find out exactly what was involved.

The Temporary Chairman: I have only just taken occupancy of the Chair, but, so far as I can judge, so far the Joint Under-Secretary has said nothing out of order, and the hon. Member will have his opportunity, just as he would if a statement were made.

Mr. Macpherson: I am obliged to you for your Ruling, Mr. Royle. I should like to point out to the Committee that it was the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central who, at this stage, asked whether I would admit that we had been wrong in proceeding in this way. I was explaining why we had sone so, and I was giving the reasons. It was on a very similar point that the hon. Gentleman, in Committee upstairs, raised this identical question—simply on the Scottish application subsections.

Mr. McInnes: In all fairness, at least to the hon. Gentleman and myself, I should like to make it clear that it was he who elected to take the opportunity, in discussing the Amendment now before the Committee, to explain to the Committee the decision of the Secretary of State. In other words, the Secretary of State has now agreed to succumb to the overtures we made on Second Reading.

Mr. Willis: Further to that point of order. I should like to put this point for your consideration, Mr. Royle. We are discussing an Amendment dealing with what is to be set off against compensation paid in respect of land taken. In the course of our discussion, the question whether we are to have a separate Bill for Scotland, when it is to be introduced, and how it is to be introduced, has been raised. I submit to you that,

if we are to discuss that, we shall not make very much progress with the Bill, quite apart from whether it would be out of order. I submit to you that it is out of order. We shall not be discussing the Bill for some time to come.

Mr. Macpherson: I am entirely in the hands of the Committee on this. I thought that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if it knew about it at this stage.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman might have told us.

Mr. Macpherson: I have told the Committee. I think that I have made the matter sufficiently clear. If the hon. Member for Kilmarnock prefers that it should be the subject of a statement at some other time, I am perfectly prepared to see how that can be done.

The Temporary Chairman: I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the Joint Under-Secretary were allowed to go on with the speech he is making, in order to give the Chair a real opportunity to know whether he is in order or not. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said since I came to occupy the Chair has seemed to me to be out of order, and I think that we should make better progress if he were allowed to resume.

Mr. Macpherson: I was challenged about why we had reached this particular decision, and I was about to say that, in reaching a decision on whether there should be a separate Scottish Bill or whether we should take part in Great Britain legislation, there are four or five factors which have to be taken into account. The first is the need for legislation affecting Scotland to be in keeping with the Scottish legal system. The second is the need for Scottish Members to take part in debate on matters which are common to the whole of Great Britain, and that has been done during the passage of this Bill. The third is the convenience both of those who must debate the Bill and those who use the resulting Act. The fourth is the effective use of Parliamentary time and the special position of the Scottish Grand Committee and the Scottish Standing Committee.
In deciding whether it is desirable to re-enact a Great Britain Act in Scottish form, there is another important question which it is necessary to ask, namely, is


the existing law on the subject contained in Great Britain Statutes or in separate Statutes for Scotland and England? Even where there are already separate Statutes there may be little or no need for reenacting an amending Great Britain Bill in Scottish form, especially if the provisions relating to Scotland and to England in that Bill are set out separately and in substantive form. With relatively short Measures, it is generally fairly easy to set these out in that way, but to have attempted to do so in the present instance would have meant a very much longer Bill and a great deal of needless repetition. As I say, we hope to get the reenacting Bill on the Statute Book at the earliest possible stage after the present Bill obtains the Royal Assent.

Mr. McInnes: The Joint. Under-Secretary of State has been given the opportunity of making a statement on the Secretary of State's intention to re-enact a purely Scottish Bill relating to town and country planning. I submit to you, Mr. Royle, that it was entirely irrelevant for him to do so. He has made a very important statement which vitally affects the Scottish legal system and the approach of the Scottish Office to it without any intimation having been given to Her Majesty's Opposition of the intention to make such a vital statement.
We pressed the Government very strongly on Second Reading that Scotland should be excluded from this Bill, but they turned down our request. They did not turn it down on any logical ground. They simply pointed out that this was a United Kingdom Measure and that there would be no separate Bill for Scotland, although town and country planning legislation in the past provided for separate Scottish Bills. I wish to express my surprise that the hon. Gentleman should take the opportunity, in the midst of discussing an Amendment to the Town and Country Planning Bill, of making a vital and important statement of this kind. I think my hon. Friends will agree that it is most unfortunate that this opportunity should have been taken to make such a statement.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Willis: The unfortunate thing about the statement of the Joint Under-Secretary of State is that not only has he chosen a very unfortunate time to

make it but, in making it, he has adduced a number of arguments in support of a course followed by the Government. I do not know to what extent we shall be allowed to say anything about those arguments, but I hope that I will be allowed to say a word or two on them.
The hon. Gentleman said that when tie came to consider whether we should have a United Kingdom or Scottish Bill we should take four things into account: first, whether the legal language of the Bill was such as would adapt itself to a separate Bill or a United Kingdom Bill; secondly, to give Scottish Members the opportunity of taking part in the discussion; thirdly, to consider the convenience of the users; and, lastly, the use of Parliamentary time.
First, the hon. Gentleman Knows that he has had to introduce a great many Amendments to the Bill in order to bring it into line with Scottish law and practice. We have previously had separate legislation. Our whole system of land tenure is completely different, and in those circumstances, where the basic consideration of a Bill is quite different in the two countries, we should have a separate Bill.
On the point about Scottish Members being given the opportunity to discuss this Bill and United Kingdom legislation, three Opposition Scottish Members have discussed the Bill and I think that we should have had two or three Government Members who have been reduced to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley). To limit discussion on the Bill to four Scottish Members out of about 70 is not giving Scottish Members the opportunity to discuss their own legislation.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State said that we had to consider the convenience of users. He knows quite well that every user of this legislation in Scotland has been most violently opposed to the method of introducing it. I have never seen so much protest in Scotland a: Scottish legislation being incorporated in an English Bill as there has been on this Bill, and the Joint Under-Secretary of State knows that. The Government have received representations from the Scottish Bar on this subject, and he knows quite well that nobody in Scotland wanted Scottish legislation incorporated in the Bill.
On the point about the best use of Parliamentary time, surely the Government have learned by now that if they had introduced separate Bills for England and Scotland the English Bill would have been disposed of in 15 sittings, not 24. The Scottish Bill could have gone through the Scottish Committee in the normal way, and far more Scottish Members would have had the opportunity of taking part. More time has been wasted on this Bill because of the incorporation of Scottish legislation into it than on any other Bill I can remember. I have sat on a great number of Standing Committees, and I know of no other Bill on which so much time has been wasted, when English Members have had to listen to my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) and myself on what the Bill meant when applied to Scotland.

Mr. Lindgren: We enjoyed it.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend may have enjoyed it, but I would hesitate to say that that was the most effective use which could be made of Parliamentary time. None of the reasons given by the Under-Secretary is sufficient to warrant the time which has been wasted on this Bill. It is scandalous, and we vigorously protested at the time. I hope that no Government will do this again on Scottish legislation.
I now come to the point that we are to have another Bill. What the legal profession in Scotland really wants is a consolidation measure for the whole of town and country planning legislation, not a separate Bill. While I have no doubt that the legal profession will be satisfied to some extent with getting a separate Bill, surely the urgent thing now is some measure of consolidation. One has only to read Clauses in this Bill. My hon. Friend and I tabled one or two Amendments to draw attention to the number of references which one has to make from the Bill to the Schedules, from the Schedules to the 1957 Act, from the 1958 Act to the 1954 Act, back to the 1919 Act and in some cases back to 1854. This is not legislating for the people of Scotland. This is creating confusion and causing the people of Scotland a great deal of inconvenience and also expense.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland ought to have been protesting about this. I do not know whether it is because his

profession does so well out of all this mass of verbiage that he chooses to be silent. It is quite unreasonable to inflict this upon Scotland, and what we really need is a consolidation Bill so that we may know where we are.
Now I will turn to the Amendment itself, to ask a question.

Mr. Sparks: Before my hon. Friend returns to the Amendment, I should like to ask you, Mr. Royle, just exactly what we are discussing at the moment. Are we in order in discussing the proposed consolidating Bill for Scotland? Are we discussing the reasons why the Government have incorporated Scottish legislation in this Bill? If we are, will the English Members be allowed to protest as the Scottish Members have done? Because we have violent objections to our time being taken up with these matters when we ought to be devoting it to English measures. We have not sufficient time to discuss the English problems, so if you can give us your Ruling and tell us what exactly we are supposed to be doing at the moment I am sure that would help us all.

The Temporary Chairman: I share the anxiety of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) about this. Listening to the last few sentences of the Joint Under-Secretary of State I thought he went rather wide, but I stated the view that it was necessary and that he might be allowed to go a little wide for the purpose of making the position perfectly clear. Having allowed the Joint Under-Secretary of State to go on to that extent I am now giving the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) some latitude in what he is saying. I hope that the Committee will accept it in that sense and that in due course we shall get back to England and Wales.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to you. Mr. Royle, for your remarks.
I would point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) that what he said was precisely the point I was making, that the time of both English and Scottish Members is wasted by this procedure.
I wanted to ask one question about the Amendment. I take it that by what the hon. Gentleman said about the Amendment he is really concerned with the value of the relevant land and not


the adjacent land? I am grateful to him for his assent on that point, because he caused a certain amount of confusion about the adjacent land.

Mr. Ross: No Government have piled more insults upon the people of Scotland than the present Government. I can remember very well the declaration which was made nine years ago—I have a copy of it here by chance—when the Unionist Party in Scotland, said that one of the things it would do would be to introduce for Scotland special separate legislation whenever circumstances required. If there is anything for which we need special legislation for Scotland it is for the law relating to the land, for that goes right back into the beginnings of the Scottish legal system, and the hon. Gentleman knows it and knows it very well. If there ever was a subject for Which we should have separate Scottish legislation that subject was legislation for the land itself, and, equally, of course, for compensation for acquisition.
Not many years ago another Secretary of State for Scotland, and a Unionist Secretary of State, said:
The position in Scotland is somewhat different both as regards the scale of the problem and the basis of compensation under the existing law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1955; Vol. 547, c. 1010.]
His attitude was that Scotland would have its own legislation. That was the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart). The present incumbent of the office is content to be trailed along at the patchwork heels of England and to land us in this humiliating position.
We have the Joint Under-Secretary of State giving a very important statement. It is all very well for him to say that he sees here now the same kind of people he saw in Standing Committee, but the matter goes beyond his merely making a statement, for he sought to offer five justifications for the original decision of the Government to treat Scotland in this way in the Bill. I was quite content that he should make a statement, and I was forbearing in allowing him to make the statement, for I thought it important that we should get the matter clear, but when he went on to justify the original decision of the Government I thought it just a bit too much. I am prepared to stomach just so much from the Joint Under-

Secretary of State, but not quite as much as that. He put it in this nice, quiet way, and I can understand his doing it. He did it at a time when most Scottish Members, the Members who are interested in these questions, are dining, so that there would be few to have the opportunity of putting questions to him on the statement and on the trimmings he added to it by way of justification.
This is a very important thing indeed for Scotland. We have been pressing the Government to get us out of this difficulty, and we said that the best way would be to have a Scottish Measure, to extract the Scottish parts from this mêlée and reprint them in a form suitable to Scottish law and intelligible to Scottish lawyers. The profession which the Solicitor-General for Scotland graces has been the most outspoken against what the Government did, and it has insisted that this at least could be done, but the way the announcement has been made is not at all flattering to the Joint Under-Secretary of State.
Does he remember what he had to say on this very question of legislating for the whole of the United Kingdom at once? He said that the problem
arises from the wide differences of character, outlook, and development between different localities in the Kingdoms. The problem, of course, becomes a good deal more acute when a separate national sentiment is involved.
These are not my words, but his. He went on:
It becomes still more acute where a separate language is involved, in a country which largely speaks a separate language. It becomes most acute of all—to my mind, though possibly others in the House may disagree on this—where there is a separate law involved, as in Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 2089.]
The hon. Gentleman is prepared to trail along with the Government, insulting Scotland even in the way he makes an announcement on their behalf. We have every reason to be angry with what has been done.
8.30 p.m.
A statement was made in which we were told that certain procedure would be adopted. It would not be dealt with by a Committee of the House but by a joint consolidating committee composed of Members of both Lords and Commons. Then the matter would come back to the House of Commons, with, I suppose, the


hope that there would be no power of amendment or addition. Even on a somewhat cursory reading of the present Bill, it seems inevitable that if we are to have that amount of trouble we ought to have some consolidation as well.
I should like to ask the Joint Under-Secretary some questions, but I have a conscience about the rules of order even if the Joint Under-Secretary has not. In any event, he probably has not the knowledge within the folds of his file to answer the questions which I would put. I register as strongly as I can my horror at the way this matter has been handled, and the way it has been slipped across. It is disgraceful that we should have a Joint Under-Secretary who is prepared to accept this kind of thing and to tell an hon. Friend, "You ask me a question about so and so, not related to the Amendment. We have the whole thing ready and we shall slip it through in Committee when there are very few present"
It is very bad taste and very bad judgment on the part of the Joint Under-Secretary not to have confined himself to a simple statement that the Government intended to do a certain thing, instead of trying to justify the original error which set the whole of Scotland by its heels. I have plenty more of the speech which the hon. Gentleman delivered on 16th November, 1949. It is always handy to carry plenty of evidence about the hon. Gentleman.
As for the Amendment, it is strange how the Government can manage to get this strange interlude into the Bill. I was far from satisfied when the hon. Gentleman gave examples and spoke about 4⅓year purchases, 7⅓year and 8⅓year purchases, and so on. This may well go to prove that the feu duty was too high in the first place. We should like to know whether this practice was so abandoned that no one was paying any feu duty at all. I have not been convinced that any benefit accrued to the land superior. If there was an isolated case where the land superior had purely and simply an interest in the right of feu duty being acquired, I could see what the hon. Gentleman is getting at, but he has not satisfied me in the case where the superior is getting additional consideration and compensation in respect of contigtous land—in other words, duplicate benefit.
I do not see why we should go to the help of that old man of the sea in a matter in respect of which his ancestors for hundreds of years did nothing at all. The hon. Gentleman need not expect me to shed any bitter tears over the land superior. I agree with Tom Johnston that the sooner he is wiped out of existence the better. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will give us a far better justification of the Amendment than we have had so far, and I hope that he does not give us any more statements in the process.

Mr. Willis: The Joint Under-Secretary said in reply to me that the relevant interest did not refer to the land superior. But subsection (3) deals precisely with the owner of the relevant interest, and subsection (4) states:
Where the last preceding subsection applies"—
in other words, the subsection that deals solely with the owner of a relevant interest—
the increase in the value of the interest in adjacent land shall be taken into account, and the amount thereof shall be deducted from the amount of the compensation which apart from this subsection would be payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition.
If we are dealing solely with the owner of the relevant interest, why should this subsection, which deals with the land superior, be inserted?

Mr. N. Macpherson: The answer is contained in Section 62 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1954, where the aggregate amount of the consideration payable is related to the amount of compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of a feuar's interest, the dominium utile. That is why it is inserted.

Amendment agreed to

Clause, as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15.—(ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR NEW PLANNING PERMISSION IN RESPECT OF LAND ACQUIRED.)

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 20, line 41, to leave out from "land" to the end of line 43 and to insert:
that amount shall be increased by an amount equal to the compensation, if any, which would he payable under this section in respect of that acquisition or sale if subsection (6) of this section were disregarded.


As I mentioned earlier, this is a very similar point. With your permission, Mr. Royle, it would be convenient if we might at the same time consider the next Amendment, in page 21, line 1, leave out from "paragraph" to end of line 4 and insert:
that amount shall be increased by an amount equal to the compensation, if any, which would have been payable under this section in respect of that acquisition or sale if—

(i) those circumstances had existed, and
(ii) subsection (6) of this section were disregarded."

The two Amendments ensure that the full additional compensation payable to the feuar enters into the calculation of the superior's consideration, not—as the Clause is at present drafted—with compensation diminished by set-off. The reasons in this case are exactly the same as those to which I referred in the previous case, with the addition that what we are here dealing with is —very largely, at any rate—compensation for disturbance and severance which are already excluded by Section 62 of the 1954 Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 21, line 1, leave out from "paragraph" to end of line 4 and insert:
that amount shall be increased by an amount equal to the compensation, if any, which would have been payable under this section in respect of that acquisition or sale if—

(i) those circumstances had existed, and
(ii) subsection (6) of this section were disregarded".—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Mitchison: The Clause raises an important question of principle, indeed more than one question of principle. The effect of it is that if during the five years after a planning decision there is a new planning permission in respect of land which has already been acquired, the man who was compensated at the time of acquisition becomes entitled to receive further compensation. It is an entirely one-sided Clause. Amendments to make it work both ways—in favour of as well as against the acquiring authority—were rejected in Committee. The Clause as it stands is in fundamental breach of a number of old-established principles of compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition, including the principles which are being reapplied by this very Bill.
The first point is that at the time of the original compulsory acquisition a notice to treat was served and compensation was assessed on the basis of conditions then prevailing pursuant to that notice to treat. For the time being the recipient of compensation could have regarded, and but for this Clause would have regarded, the whole matter as completed. Instead of that there is power to revert to the amount at a later date and to reassess compensation, not on the basis of what prevailed at the time of the original notice to treat, but at some later period.
It has always been an absolutely fundamental principle of compensation in these cases that the rights of parties should be taken to crystallise and be assessed as at the date of a notice to treat, just as in general legal proceedings they are taken to crystallise and are decided as at the date of the issue of the writ.
That principle is completely disregarded by the Clause. What happens now is that in spite of an assessment at the time a further compensation, brought on by extraneous matters occurring after the date of the notice to treat, becomes payable at a later stage and for a one-sided purpose. That is the first principle which is broken.
Another principle is broken. The first rule for assessment in the 1919 Act says:
No allowance shall be made on account of the acquisition being compulsory.
At the time that referred to a particular 10 per cent. which was usually allowed in accordance with practice at that time on account of a compulsory acquisition. The principle that was intended and enacted by that rule was that compulsory acquisition should be treated, for the purpose of assessing compensation, in the same way as sales between private individuals. That is the avowed purpose of the Bill, that compensation should be assessed at the open market value, and that means the open market value at the time of the notice to treat.
If the parties to this transaction were a willing seller and a willing buyer, and neither of them had compulsory powers or anything of the sort, there is no doubt that they would settle their terms as at the time the land was bargained for and finally handed over. As between private parties no question could possibly arise of an increased value because of a change in


use afterwards, or, for that matter, due to a change of planning permission.
If two private individuals make a bargain and it afterwards turns out to be more profitable to one than to the other, or if one of them thinks he has been hard done by, both in law and in common sense that is no ground for reopening the bargain. That is what is now proposed, and that it should be done unilaterally solely for the benefit of the man who sold the property.
What will follow from this? The result will be that during those five years the man in question, having received all the compensation he expected to get, assessed at the open market value at the time, may have gone to Australia, or died, or become bankrupt, or something else. Accordingly, the next Clause of the Bill provides supplementary provision for the purpose of facilitating the making of claims for compensation which we are now discussing. A whole body of new and quite ingenious machinery has to be introduced for the express purpose of carrying out the Tory philosophy of reopening a bargain in favour of a landlord as against the local authority, notwithstanding the fact that the Government are purporting in the Bill to get compensation at open market value.
8.45 p.m.
It is utterly monstrous that a Government should pretend to be fair as between one side and the other and should then introduce a provision of this sort which goes wildly and impossibly beyond anything which could possibly rule in any private bargain and which makes a man receive not only open market value, not only what is fair at the time, but something which is added to it afterwards for a reason with which he has nothing to do.
What is the Tory philosophy, the Tory doctrine, which defends a provision of that sort, which defends it in the sense of disregarding an agreement made at the time—because that is what it comes to—leaving the matter open, and open in only one sense, for five years, introducing special machinery for the purpose, and all that for no public purpose whatever? If a man is looking for fair compensation and is promised fair compensation at the time of the notice to treat, why should the

Clause, and this Clause only, give him, and only him and not the acquiring authority, something in addition to that?
Is this the cat coming out of the bag at last? Is it true that the Tories, however hard they try, cannot be fair to any public authority when a landlord is involved on the other side? Is it true that they are prepared to introduce rules to which I have referred and which go on to say that the value of the land shall be the amount which the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer might be expected to have realised, and then to bring in a Clause which gives this one-sided and uncoven-anted benefit in addition to what ought to have been provided in common fairness at the time? It is a monstrous and exceptional provision.
It was intended that the amount should be what the land would have raised if sold in the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer. With a willing buyer and a willing seller, I cannot think that either side would agree to postpone a settlement of the matter for five years and leave it to some agency which might or might not be the agency of one or the other of them. This is an unprecedented and monstrous proposition.
In Committee we sought to make it more reasonable. We were turned down not only on the point of mutuality, but on a minor point. We said, "If you must do this, let the period be a month or three months or six months." That would give time to prevent a local authority buying for one purpose and deliberately changing its mind. We put forward that sort of period as a bait to see what hon. Members opposite would make of it. They simply said that we were an illogical Opposition and had not gone the whole hog.
This time we are going the whole hog, and that is the right thing to do in this connection. If we start to allow people to change their minds and then make them liable for having done so, we must do it on one supposition only, that we are dealing with people who are dishonest. We all know cases under rent control legislation where landlords have obtained possession of a house for their own use and, surprisingly shortly afterwards, have changed their minds and sold the house and gone elsewhere. Nobody has yet succeeded in disturbing a decision of that


kind, and we have had to recognise that there are cases where an ostensible change of mind may be used to conceal something a little worse, namely, fraudulent dishonesty.
But are the Government so tired and intolerant of local authorities that they are prepared to justify the Clause by saying that local authorities may dishonestly acquire for one purpose and then purport to change their minds? There are some rather ambiguous words in the White Paper, to which I need not refer, but if that is what they think the sooner they abandon the seat of Government and any claim to control the local authorities the better it will be, on all counts. It is monstrous to put up that argument as a justification for the Clause.
What other justification can there be? To assess compensation once at the time of the notice to treat and then to reassess it at any time within five years afterwards is wrong. It is wrong to purport to give a man a fair deal at the time and then to add something to him, and to him only, afterwards. By so doing we are applying, to acquiring authorities and to compulsory purchases, principles—or rather a lack of principles—which could never be found as between buyer and seller in the open market, the purpose of which it is to approximate in the Bill.
There can be no defence or justification for this. If the Government really mean any of the things they have said about the Bill; if they intend to promote fairness and to apply the law as it used to be, I appeal to them to drop the Clause and the following one here and now and to give up this attempt to penalise public authorities solely for the benefit of the landlords of England and Scotland.

Mr. Skeffington: I support what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has said. The Clause raises a fundamental principle to which the strongest possible objection is taken by hon. Members on this side of the Committee. As we said when discussing Clause 14, as it then was, in Committee, the proposition makes a mockery of the Government's claim to introduce a formula for paying market value for land which is compulsorily acquired. Already the formula is rather artificial, but the Clause makes it so artificial that it has no relevance to the ordinary processes by

which we define what is meant by market value.
The Minister has claimed that because the Bill has not received much criticism from professional bodies they commend it. I would point out that that is not the case of local authorities, who are very unhappy about this Clause. Some of them strongly oppose it. That is certainly the case with the London County Council, which has publicly stated that it is in no way opposed to a return to the concept of market value for the purchase price of land compulsorily acquired, but is strongly opposed to this provision that if, within the period of five years, another and more valuable use is found for the land so acquired, the authority shall be forced to pay full compensation.
We tried to discover, in the course of the discussions upstairs, why this provision was necessary. Speaking for myself and, I am sure, my hon. and right hon. Friends, I say that there is a considerable case to be made out for returning to market value for compulsory acquisition, certainly for the small owner, who, having given up his land, has to buy other land at market price on Which to live or to carry on his business, farm or whatever it may be. That is a conception which we support, but we certainly cannot see why this formula of "market value plus" should be introduced into the Bill.
I regret to say that nothing which was advanced by the Government upstairs has convinced us of this need. The only reason appears to be a very sympathetic attitude to large landowners generally. It was an astonishing feature of our arguments in Committee that when we said "Very well, suppose we accept this proposition that if, within five years, the acquiring authority does use the land for a more valuable purpose, extra compensation is then payable, will the Government then agree that if the local authority uses that land for a less valuable purpose within five years, the landowner should return some of the value which he has received?," we were told that this was not an acceptable proposition, and that it would not work at all.
The Minister, in words Which show how very unbalanced is the view of the Government, said that the landowner would not be in a position to give back anything, because when the authority acquired the land it acquired it on the


most valuable basis possible, having regard to the planning permissions given. This is really a case of the landowner winning, whatever side the coin shows. He certainly wins in that if the local authority uses the land for a less valuable purpose within five years he will have already been paid on the maximum basis, arid, on the other hand, if additional value is put an that land by same other use he is entitled to extra compensation.
It is extremely nice for the landowner, but I suggest that two things follow from that. The first is that it is no longer market value, but an entirely artificial formula designed in the interests of the great landowners. It means also that the local authority very often would be placed in the position of having to pay extra compensation for which there is no moral or practical justification at all. To term this market value is an abuse of language.
What market value means is that, having taken into account various considerations at the time of the sale, a fair price is arrived at between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Here the so-called market value being arrived at is a market value whereby one party, five years afterwards, can go back and say "I did not know that you were going to use this land for such a valuable purpose; I want more cash, and I am going to have it." Anybody who did that in the course of an ordinary commercial transaction would be told "It is absolutely monstrous; you freely entered into the bargain, and that is the price arrived at. Commercial law says that parties are at arm's length in making a contract, and once you make the contract that is your business."
Apparently, when the local authority, in order to undertake its statutory obligations, purchases land, and then, because of social requirements, or in order to carry out the duties laid upon it by this House or the wishes of its own citizens, uses it for another purpose, the former landowner, although he has already had full market value at the time his land was acquired, can claim this extra compensation. That is a monstrous and class conscious piece of legislation that ought to be decried from the housetops. It is impossible to see how this can be justified as being fair to the landowner and the public and to the public and local authorities.
9.0 p.m.
I sum up my objections, which I know are shared by a number of local authorities—certainly by the London County Council—under five heads. First, in its present form the Clause abandons the principle which has hitherto been regarded as quite fundamental, that compensation must be assessed as on the date of the notice to treat. That should be the final figure and, if we are not to make a complete mockery of this formula, we should not attach to it some future contingent right particularly when such a right cannot be used in reverse in the interest of local authorities. There might be something to be said for this process if it worked both ways, but, as the Minister has said, it cannot, because in the normal way the landowner would have got the maximum possible from the local authority in any event.
Secondly, this contingent liability will mitigate against the buying of land by local authorities in anticipation of their future requirements, which is something the Minister has advised them to do and which is recommended in the White Paper. Certainly the smaller local authorities will think twice about the purchase of land if, in addition to what they contracted to pay at the time of the notice to treat, they may face additional payments afterwards in connection with the carrying out of their statutory duties. Incidentally, we are back once more to the position forecast by the Uthwatt Report, to which reference was made earlier, that one of the difficulties to effective planning was that local authorities—particularly in the days when the Uthwatt Committee reported—must always bear in mind the difficulties of future extra compensation. That was particularly true before the coming into force of the procedures under the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. It is certainly the view of the London County Council experts, and of others, that this Clause will cramp the future buying of land and that thereby proper forward looking planning will to that degree he influenced.
I wish, thirdly, to emphasise a point which I have already made, that the benefit of this Clause is always in the interest of the landowner. As we know from what the Minister has already said, that means the large landowners—


because resident occupiers get the maximum market value in most cases—but never the public or the local authorities. A Clause so construed is monstrous and unfair and I hope that everyone will realise that it is repugnant to those who wish to see fair play and justice.
Fourthly, it departs from the principle, adhered to in other parts of the Bill, that compensation is assessed on the value of the market at the time when the land is acquired. That principle is abandoned, apparently for no good reason except to benefit the landlords.
Lastly, there seems to be no justification whatever for applying the principles of the Clause in favour of an owner whose land is acquired compulsorily, or where compulsory powers are available, if an owner who in similar circumstances was selling without compulsory powers being used would not require or be in a legal position to take compensation. Why should this apply only in the case of a public authority using compulsory powers granted by the House of Commons? Because for all these reasons this Clause is grossly unfair between the landowner and the ratepayer—who ought sometimes to be considered by this Committee in the matter of the acquisition of land—I hope that the Committee will divide against it.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The arguments which have been raised by hon. Members opposite seem to be these. That the principle on which we should ask should be, as was said by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that compensation should be given at open market value. Secondly, to use the words of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), there should be a fair deal at the time.
The main point is surely this: Under the provision of the Bill, in order to decide what is a fair deal at the time, a fair deal, that is, to both sides, certain provisions lay down how we are to arrive at the assumptions that are to be made as to planning permission as well as to recognition of the planning permissions that exist. One of the outstanding features is that planning permission is considered to be available for the purpose for which the local authority wishes to acquire the land.
It must be fair to the purchaser that the use to which that land is to be put should be one of the things to be taken into account. There may be a change of view as to what that use should be, but if the change takes place within a reasonable time after the compulsory acquisition it is only reasonable that the change should be considered as if that were the planning permission which had been available at the time of acquisition. That is exactly what the Clause does.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the difference between what he is now saying and the case of a private purchaser who buys from a private seller for one purpose and thereafter uses what he has bought for another and more profitable purpose? Does the seller get any extra price for having done that?

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. and learned Gentleman must realise that in one case the seller is willing. He is prepared, and may be anxious, to sell, and may agree to sell because the price is sufficiently attractive. In the other case it is compulsory acquisition, in which the owner from whom the land is being acquired has no option but to sell. [Interruption.] I know what the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to say. In accordance with the provisions of the Bill, it is only right that all the planning permissions that are available and the uses to which the land could be put if it were not being compulsorily acquired should be taken into account. That is what is done in this case.

Mr. Mitchison: Since the Joint Under-Secretary of State knows what I am going to say, perhaps I may be allowed to say it for other people who know less. The first point is in direct contradiction to the first of the rules in the 1919 Act which I read out. The second comment is that I understood that the purposes of the earlier Clauses were to make it crystal clear that the seller was to got a fair, open-market price. That is what is said in the White Paper. If he gets it once when the land is bought, why should he get an addition afterwards?

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. and learned Gentleman confirms what I thought. I thought he was going to make that point. It is indeed the case


that no allowance is made because acquisition is compulsory, but in calculating the value because acquisition is compulsory we have to calculate in a certain way. It is only right that we should take into account uses to which the land is to be put. That enters into the calculation of what the value should be. It is true that some authorities buy land—

Mr. Mitchison: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that I am abusing the right of interruption, but we are in Committee. He is now contradicting the second rule, which says that it is the amount which the land sold in the open market by a willing seller might be expected to realise; a willing seller.

Mr. Macpherson: The point surely is that land is being acquired with certain planning permissions and for certain purposes. Those purposes are taken into account in the calculation of the price in exactly the same way as they would if the land were being sold between a willing buyer and a willing seller. What is available is the planning permissions at the time and any possible planning permissions which would be available.
The difference in this case is that the acquiring authority has compulsory powers to acquire for a specific use. Very often if it is a compulsory acquisition that has to be approved by the Minister for that specific use, and it is that use which enters into the calculation of what the purchase price should be. If it turns out that the use is different, simply because there is no option but to sell, surely it is right that any additional and more valuable use should be taken into account if that is the use to which the acquiring authority is to put the property.

Mr. MacColl: The point made by the hon. Gentleman would be very plausible if he accepted the corollary, which is that if that use changed against the vendor there ought to be repayment. The basis of the calculation for compensation is the planning permission obtained for the use to which the authority is to put the land. Subsequently, it is discovered that the authority is not to put the land to that use. Had that been known when the transaction took place, the compensation would have been less. Therefore, the logical development of the argument of the hon. Gentleman would be that which we raised in Committee upstairs, that there ought to

be a review of the contract in every case, whether it went for or against the vendor.

Mr. Macpherson: That would be so but for this fact. If it were the case that the calculation depended solely on the use to which the land was to be put by the public authority, then of course what the hon. Member said would be quite right, but that is not so in accordance with this Bill, nor should it be so. It is open to either party to obtain a certificate us to what the use would be but for the acquisition. Therefore, there is no reason whatever for the local authority to reduce the amount by the mere fact that if ever there were a purpose for putting the land to a particular use for which it was intended at the time of acquisition clearly a certificate would be available at that time.
It seems on all counts that it is unquestionably reasonable, if we are to be fair to both sides, that any change of intention as to the use which the acquiring authority is to make of the land if it gives a higher and more valuable use that should be added into the purchase price if that change takes place within five years. That is what the Clause does.

Mr. Skeffington: Will the hon. Gentleman not condescend to answer the point I put about the difficulties which will face local authorities in future buying? I referred to this point which was one of the important considerations of the Uthwatt Committee. In paragraph 25 of its Report, that Committee said:
Unquestionably the greatest obstacle to really effective planning has been the fear on the part of planning authorities of incurring indefinite liabilities.
That is precisely what the Clause will do with the extra compensation which will become payable in five years. I think the Committee is entitled to hear the views of the hon. Gentleman on that.

Mr. Macpherson: There are two forms of indefinite liability which can be acquired. One is an indefinite liability to buy land and hold it as against an unknown and unspecified future use. A local authority can do that where it has not compulsory powers, but where there are compulsory powers that is a very different matter. It obtains the powers for a specific purpose and, if the purpose changes, it should pay a higher price to cover that purpose.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman has shown to his own satisfaction but to the satisfaction of no one on this side of the Committee that this very black cat is really clear white.

Division No. 70.]
AYES
[9.15 p.m


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cower, H. R.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Altken, W. T.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Arbuthnot, John
Green, A.
Nichols, Harmar


Armstrong, C. W.
Grimondi J.
Nicolson, N. (B'n' 'th, E. &amp; Chr'oh)


Ashton, H.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Oakshott, H. D.


Balnicl, Lord
Gurden, Harold
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)


Barlow, Sir John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborne, C,


Barter, John
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Page, R. G.


Batsford, Brian
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Hay, John
Partride, E.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Peel, W. J.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Hicks-Beach, Mal. W. W.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Blggs-Davison, J. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Holt, A. F.
Pott, H. P.


Bishop, F. P.
Hornby, R. P.
Powell, J. Enoch


Body, R. F.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M.P.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Horobin, Sir Ian
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Rawlinson, Peter


Brooke, Rt, Hon. Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)



Brooman-White, R. C.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Redmayne, M.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Burden, F. F. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Carr, Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwioh)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Shepherd, William


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kershaw, J. A.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cole, Norman
Kimball, M.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Cooke, Robert
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Leavey, J. A.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cordeaux, Lt-col. J. K.
Legge-Bourke, Mal. E. A. H.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Temple, John M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Dance, J. C. G.
Lloyd, Mal. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Davidson, Viscountess
Loveys, Walter H.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


D'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Deedes, w. F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vane, W. M. F.


Digby, Simon Wingfleld
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Mackeson, Brig Sir Harry
Wade, D. W.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Maddan, Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Elliot, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Wall, Patrick


Errington, Sir Eric
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Fell, A.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Webster, David


Finlay, Graeme
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Fisher, Nigel
Marshall, Douglas
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Freeth, Denzil
Mathew, R.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gammans, Lady
Mawby, R. L.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Yates, William (The Wrekln)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Medlicott, Sir Frank



Gough, C. F. H.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Bryan and Mr. Hughes-Young




NOES


Alnsley, J. W.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dodds, N. N.


Awbery, S. S.
Carmichael, J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwoh)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Edelman, M.


Benson, Sir George
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Beswick, Frank
Chetwynd, G. R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Blackburn, F,
Cliffe, Michael
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Coillck, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Cronin, J. D.
Foot, D. M.


Boyd, T. C.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Brockway, A. F,
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Gibson, C. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Deer, G.
Grey, C. F.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Diamond, John
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Question put, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 171,

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacColl, J. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Hale, Leslie
McInnes, J.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Hamilton, W. W.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ross, William


Hannan, W.
McLeavy, Frank
Short, E. W.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mahon, Simon
Skeffington, A. M.


Hastings, S.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Hayman, F. H.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Healey, Denis
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Herbison, Miss M.
Mason, Roy
Sparks, J. A.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Spriggs, Leslie


Holman, P.
Moody, A. S.
Stonehouse, John


Holmes, Horace
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on Trent, C.)


Houghton, Douglas
Mort, D. L.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hoy, J. H.
Moyle, A.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hunter, A. E.
Mulley, F. W.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Neal, Mr. Harold
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oliver, G. H.
Thornton, E.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oram, A. E.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Janner, B.
Oswald, T.
Viant, S. P.


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Padley, W. E.
Weitzman, D.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Kenyon, C.
Parker, J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Paton, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Lawson, G. M.
Pentland, N.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Popplewell, E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Prentice, R. E.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Lindgren, C. S.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Winterbottom, Richard


Logan, D. G.
Probert, A. R.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pursey, Cmdr. H.



McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Randall, H. E.



McCann, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32.—(OBLIGATION TO PURCHASE RESIDENT OWNER-OCCUPIER'S INTER-EST AFFECTED BY PLANNING PROPOSALS.)

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Hay): I beg to move, in page 46, line 36, at the end to insert:
(c) is land indicated in a development plan (otherwise than by being allocated or defined as mentioned in the last preceding paragraph) as land on which a road is proposed to he constructed or land to be included in a road as proposed to be improved or altered, or.
I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee, Sir Gordon, if we could take with this Amendment seven subsequent Amendments to the Clause in the name of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I think that, in that way, we may be able to make a little progress in clearing the Order Paper.

The Deputy Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): Yes, I think that would be for the convenience of the Committee.

Mr. Hay: As the Committee will remember, the purpose of the Clause is to enable the resident owner-occupier of a house or part of a building which is used as a dwelling to require certain authorities to purchase his interest where that interest is clearly shown to be subject to some

threat of future compulsory acquisition. This is what we call planning blight which makes property unsaleable. Subsection (7) defines what is meant by "authority" It is a local authority, a Government Department or some other body possessing compulsory purchase powers.
The Clause gives the owner the right, where blight has occurred, to serve a notice on an authority requiring it to purchase the property now and not at some future time. The owner can do this only if he can show that he has made a reasonable effort to sell the property, but has been unable to sell except at a substantially low price than the property would otherwise have fetched had the blight plans, if I may use the expression, not existed.
Circumstances which cause blight are set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1), and during the Committee stage my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) drew attention to one particular defect, namely, that the provisions as they stand are not wide enough to cover all cases of road construction, alteration or improvement. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation gave an undertaking that we would look into this point, and the Amendments are the result.
The effect is to include two new paragraphs in subsection (1). By the first


Amendment, there will be a new paragraph (c) which covers specifically road proposals which are shown in a development plan. By the second Amendment, there will be a new paragraph (e) which will cover the case where a local authority approves by resolution plans for constructing, improving or altering roads—that is, speaking in fairly broad terms, principally the minor type of road improvement or construction work.
If the Committee approves the Amendment, the consequence will be that in the context of Clause 32 we shall cover three types of case. The first is where roads are shown in the development plan as being constructed, improved or altered. The second case, which is already covered by paragraph (d) of subsection (1), will be trunk and special road schemes such as motorways, or orders made by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation or special road authority. The third type will be, as I have said, the more minor type of road works, plans for which are approved by the local authority.
The other six Amendments, I assure the Committee, are either drafting or consequential, and I need not take up time with them. However, I should like to express my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby for drawing attention to this point. I hope that the Amendments are acceptable to him and to the Committee.

Mr. MacColl: It seems to us that this is a reasonable extension of the principle which has already been accepted in Committee, and we therefore do not oppose the Amendments.

Mr. Page: I rise only to thank my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary most sincerely for carrying out the undertaking given during the Committee stage and particularly for working out the consequential Amendments, which I had not done originally.

Amendtnent agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 47, line 4, at end insert:
or
(e) is land shown on plans approved by a resolution of a local highway authority as land comprised in the site of a road as proposed to be constructed, improved or altered by that authority".—[Mr. Hay.]

Sir Eric Errington: I beg to move, in page 47, line 9, to leave out "a resident" and to insert "an".
It might be convenient for the Committee to discuss at the same time the following four Amendments: In page 47, line 23, leave out "a resident" and insert "an"; in line 33, leave out "resident"; in page 48, line 3, leave out "resident"; and in line 5, leave out "as a private dwelling". I would further suggest that we discuss with these Amendments the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friends and myself which was put down for consideration on Report, in page 48, line 21, at end insert:
(7) The provisions of this section shall not apply to a limited liability company unless the management thereof is in the hands of a person or persons who together, if more than one, are beneficially entitled to a minimum of two-thirds of the paid up share capital of such company.
9.30 p.m.
The expression in the Clause, "resident owner-occupier" is one which, I think, is a new expression, and while it covers a substantial number of cases it does not cover some cases which may suffer from planning blight. For that reason, to leave out the word "resident" would widen the Clause very considerably.
The way in which the case is dealt with is not upon the basis of hardship but upon the basis of unsaleability of the land affected. In these circumstances it would seem only fair that not only the resident in residential premises should be protected from planning blight but also the individual who has a small lock-up shop. One knows of many cases where people have received compensation for injury, and the case of people who find themselves in a position in which they cannot get customers to their shops, and see their trade being lost day after day, is in many ways just as great a one of hardship as is that of a residential occupier.
It was felt, however, that this might, and indeed would, open the door rather wider than was considered wise, and for that reason the last Amendment to which I have referred, in page 48, line 21, was put down. The object of that provision is that a large company with a number of branches should not be able to take advantage of the extension proposed in the other Amendments. The larger company has facilities for transferring trade to branches, facilities which are not open


to the ordinary individual who runs a lock-up shop.
I would not say that these Amendments are necessarily word perfect, but their object is to cover the case not only of the ordinary resident owner but of what I would describe as the working proprietor of a business. My right hon. Friend may be able to find some happier words which would extend, though not too far, the terms of the subsection.

Mr. Page: I support the Amendment. I understand that the Clause is intended to remedy the injury done to a person whose property is reduced in value by planning proposals hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles when he does not know when it will drop and, for that reason, he is unable to dispose of his property at its proper value.
The whole background of the Clause is hardship, although "hardship" is not mentioned at all in it. It is a question whether it will be a hardship on a resident owner-occupier if he is unable to dispose of his property at its proper value because of the planning proposals which are upon it. But because of the difficulty of defining hardship for the purposes of a statute, the test put in the Clause is unsaleability. Having got to that test of unsaleability, if we applied it to all those who would suffer hardship, whether resident owner-occupiers or occupiers of business premises or those who merely invest in property, we should have the difficulty of commercial property possibly being unloaded on to the local authority at a time convenient to the owner of that property.
Therefore, I understand that in the process of reasoning in drafting the subsection the unsaleability test was restricted to the resident owner-occupier. But the result is that it thus excludes some of those who will suffer a very real hardship by planning blight, particularly the small business man. I think that he will suffer a greater hardship in some cases than the resident owner-occupier.
If the resident owner-occupier retains his property until notice to treat is served, perhaps five or ten years hence, he will get the value of his house. It is true that he will suffer hardships if he wants to dispose of it before notice to treat is

served on him, but if he hangs on he will have the market value under the present Bill. That may not happen to the small shopkeeper. He will see his business dwindle away because he is in an area eventually scheduled for compulsory purchase and from which the residents are already moving to a new estate.
Compulsory purchase orders may be coming on that area step by step, and his customers may already be moving away from him. Therefore, unlike the resident owner-occupier, he may be losing the value of his property, and, if he hangs on, the property may be of less value when it is eventually compulsorily purchased from him. Therefore, he may suffer even a greater hardship than the resident owner-occupier. It has been difficult to draft an Amendment which would confine its provisions to the small man without letting in commercial undertakings which can fend for themselves. An effort has been made to restrict application of the Amendment to companies where there is a working owner. I would hope that the Amendment would do what we intend it to do. The intention is that the hardship which will fall on the small business man through planning blight should be taken into account in the Clause.

Mr. Gibson: The Amendment widens very considerably the range of cases which could be affected by the Bill. The position of the resident owner-occupier is mentioned in the Bill. Some of us had doubts during the Committee stage whether it was covered not where a compulsory order had been applied but where it was suggested that one might come into operation in five, ten or fifteen years' time. As I understand the Amendments which have been made, that point is now covered.
That is no reason why we should extend the range as this Amendment will do. In spite of what has been said, I am not at all sure that the Amendment will not let in property companies, and I am not particularly anxious to do that. I hope the Minister will take that view.
With regard to shops, surely once a compulsory order is approved by the council and put into operation, shopkeepers are covered by the ordinary procedure and, as has happened many times, are given the necessary compensation and


frequently, at any rate in London, provided with a new and much better shop in a much better situation where they can continue to make profits. There is not the same loss to them as there is to the poor devil who has bought a house and then finds that a road will go through his front garden and wants to get rid of the house but is unable to do so. I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. Brooke: I agree with the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) that this group of Amendments goes too wide, but there is a problem here and I think both sides of the Committee would agree upon that. What the Government have been seeking to do—I explained this in Committee and said that no Clause in the Bill had been more carefully considered before the Bill was introduced—is to give an effective safeguard against the hardship which planning blight can impose on those for whom there is, as it were, no escape from it.
In the Bill as drafted we confine this to the resident owner-occupier, partly because we found by experience that more than 90 per cent. of all the cases reported to the Department concerned the resident owner-occupier, and partly because it is the resident owner-occupier who will not he moving home unless he really is under strong compulsion to do so. Thus, there is no question of his choosing a time to unload on to the local authority.
At the same time, I said on Second Reading, and perhaps I may be forgiven for repeating it now, that the background is changing. I said:
Outside the statutory provisions local authorities and public authorities generally will have discretion to purchase in advance other types of property besides the residential owner-occupied property. Hitherto the bias of Government policy has been against their doing that. Loan sanction has been grudgingly given, and Exchequer grants have not been available until the actual development took place. Now, by Clauses 35 and 36, and a promise of a change in administrative policy, all that is being reversed, and the Government will in future be encouraging local authorities to meet cases of hardship by purchasing in advance."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT. 13th November, 1958; Vol. 595, c. 693.]
9.45 p.m.
This is a genuine change in Government policy, and it will mean that local authorities will, in the exercise of their discretion, be much more disposed to

purchase in advance when hardship is brought to their notice than they have been in the past. Nevertheless, the Government felt that it was right to give to the resident owner-occupier the power of demanding that if he could prove blight, or if he could prove diminution of value, the public authority would purchase the property from him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) suggested that there were others who should be considered in addition to the resident owner-occupier and that there might be cases to rival that of the resident owner-occupier in a need for certainty that it will be possible to get the local authority to purchase in advance where there is genuine blight. As I said at the beginning. this series of Amendments would extend beyond those cases of individual hardship which the hon. Member has in mind.
The test that has to be applied here is the test in the case of a limited liability company, that the management is in the hands of persons who are beneficially entitled to at least two-thirds of the paid-up share capital. That might bring in some very substantial businesses. Indeed, from the wording that my hon. Friend used in moving the Amendment, I sensed that he was conscious of that and that this had been as it were a shot to try and find a definition that would really be confined to the working proprietor. I hope he will not take it amiss if I say that it was a rather bad shot—

Sir E. Errington: Perhaps my right hon. Friend can make a better shot.

Mr. Brooke: —but I can appreciate what he is aiming at. The argument of my hon. Friend is that the working proprietor who gets his living through a small lock-up shop may be in as difficult a position as the resident owner-occupier who may live over the shop or the resident owner-occupier who is occupying a house and for very good reason needs to move.
Both sides of the Committee would accept that an owner-occupier would not move unless he had to. To get out of one house into another is not a thing one does lightly. There is no question of unloading on the public authority.
I said in Committee that if the Government could see some new form of definition which did not place upon the Minister or anybody else the task of defining severe hardship I would be sympathetically disposed to it, and I repeat now that if any hon. Member on either side of the Committee can suggest a test which would include individual working proprietors as well as the resident owner-occupiers whom we all probably wish to help, I should be sympathetically disposed to it.
I can give my hon. Friend the undertaking that the Government will examine this further. The Bill will have to pass through all its stages in another place and if somebody between now and then can suggest a test that will genuinely safeguard the position of the small man, without opening the door to the large concern being enabled to unload its property at a time of its own choosing on to the local authority, the Government will sympathetically consider that.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Although my right hon. Friend has spoken, I make no apology for bringing forward another example of hardship which has not been mentioned. That is the case of the owner-occupier of farm land. The owner-occupier of a farm is in a particularly difficult position, because under the definition Clause, the hereditament is the aggregate of the land forming the subject of a single entry in the valuation list.
As hon. Members know, agricultural land is not included with the house and garden, so that the separate entry in the case of a farm is that of the farmhouse and garden. That means that if the whole of a farm is designated on the plan for acquisition, the owner-occupier can compel the acquiring authority to acquire only the house and the garden. It is difficult to see what special value could be placed on the house and garden which would represent the value of the farmhouse as an integral part of the farm holding.
The purpose of the Clause is to enable the resident owner-occupier to rehouse himself, if he requires to do so, and in certain conditions to compel the acquiring authority to buy his land in advance of requirements, to enable him to buy another property. As an example, if the farm is designated for use as a reservoir it would he impossible for the owner-occupier,

even if he could compel the acquiring authority to acquire his house and garden, to get enough money to buy another farm, and while the threat of acquisition was over him, he would not be able to raise money on the land, which would have become unsaleable.
If a substantial part of the farm is designated for some public purpose, but the area designated does not include the farmhouse the Clause would not apply, even though the farm were rendered practically unsaleable as a result of the designation.
I have had brought to my notice the case of a small fruit farm of about 30 acres which was designated as long ago as 1949, under the first plan soon after the Silkin Act came itno operation. There is no point in the owner replanting his trees, as he should do in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. Nor is there any point in bringing the buildings up to modern requirements and re-equiping the holding, and so on. To do so would only add to the burden of the price which the acquiring authority would have to pay at the end of the day.
Yet the farm is going down as the trees get older and need replacement. The farmer wants to get out of the holding and to acquire another, but he cannot sell and thus cannot buy another holding. Nor can he re-equip the present holding, and that seems to be against both private and public interest.
In Committee my right hon. Friend explained that if farm buildings and farm land were not excluded from these arrangements acquiring authorities might find themselves obliged to buy very large farms—I believe an instance was given of a farm of over 1.000 acres—just because a small area of the farm was required for public purposes. It was said that this would impose an intolerable burden upon the acquiring authority. Of course it would, in those circumstances, but there is no intention of excluding farms or any other form of property from the obligation to show that every effort has been made by the owner to sell the farm, or whatever the holding may be, but that he has not been able to do so except at a price substantially lower than might have reasonably been expected.
That would clearly not apply to a very large farm of which only a small area was required, perhaps for a cemetery or


a similar purpose. The owner would not be left with something which was unsaleable; he would be left with the rest of the farm, and farms are in great demand nowadays. If only a small area were required there would be no difficulty about his selling the remainder, and he could not possibly qualify under the terms of the Clause.
I am sorry that I have spoken after the Minister, but it is right that these matters should be deployed. Arrangements on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend and I have the support of such bodies as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which points out that the Clause, as drafted, does not apply to occupiers of properties used for business or agriculture, and urges that the Clause should be extended to cover such cases, since, as it points out, equal hardship may be occasioned. It also has the support of the Incorporated Society of Auctioneers and Landed Property Agents, which urges that the owner-occupiers of any land designated for compulsory acquisition should be able to require the designating authority to buy his interest or release the land from designation. That is further than some of us would go, but it is supported in principle by other bodies, to mention only a few, by the National Farmers' Union, the National Federation of Property Owners and the Retail Distributors' Association.
My right hon. Friend, perhaps a little unjustly, chided us for not having brought forward a workable Amendment. As a result of what he then said we have tried to frame an Amendment which would help the farmer or small business man, and although my right hon. Friend does not like the way in which we have done it, I hope that he will not shut his mind to the possibility, or prevent his Departmental officials, between now and the concluding stages of the Bill, from trying to deal with these difficult cases.

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend may like me to reply immediately. The kind of case which he has mentioned is the kind to which a solution should be found, and if he will let me have further particulars I will most gladly look into the matter. I shall see whether the local authority concerned is willing to purchase in advance. It seems unreasonable that a long-standing blight should fall upon a farm of that character, and I would hope

that, either by statutory provision or by the local authority exercising its discretion, the blight could be lifted.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that there may be a difference between the kind of case which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) seemed to have in mind—the case of the lock-up shop—and the kind of case where a road is likely to cut off one corner of a very large farm. It may be damaging to the farm, and the farmer would certainly deserve compensation for that; but it would not necessarily prevent his continuing to operate the farm as an economic unit. I think there is a clear distinction between the large farm which is only slightly affected by proposed public development, and the small lock-up shop where the man may suffer very serious financial hardship if he can do nothing about it.
10.0 p.m.
I should like to look into all this further, and, indeed, perhaps both sides of the Committee would desire that I should. If there is any practical Amendment, I would hope that the rules governing the procedure of the two Houses would permit it to be made with propriety in another place. I am not saying that we can find any better line of demarcation than is in the Bill at present, but I do say that I retain an open mind about it, and that if my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot is willing to withdraw this Amendment, I will go on thinking and the Government will go on thinking; and I hope that all those concerned will be ready to make any further suggestions they may have.

Sir E. Errington: In view of what my right hon. Friend has undertaken, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 48, line 27, leave out from "allocated" to first "of" in line 29 and insert:
defined or indicated as mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (c)

In line 32, leave out "or defined" and insert "defined or indicated".

In line 40, at end insert:
(d) in relation to land falling within paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of this section, means the date of the passing of the resolution by virtue of which it falls within that paragraph.

In line 45, leave out "(d)" and insert (e)".

In line 45, leave out from "section" to "proposed" in line 1 on page 49 and insert:
the land is liable to be acquired or is indicated as being".

In page 49, line 5, leave out "(d)" and insert "(e)".—[Mr. Hay.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37.—(ADVANCES AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF LAND ACQUIRED FOR ROADS.)

Amendment made: In page 51, line 25, leave out from "authorities" to "shall". —[Mr. Hay.]

Mr. Hay: I beg to move, in page 51, line 34, to leave out from beginning to "any" in line 38 and insert:
to make advances under the said section eight shall also include power to make such advances in respect of either or both of the following, that is to say.—
(a)".
I think it would be convenient if we could take this Amendment together with the following two Amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend, and, possibly also, the Amendment to the Title, in line 13, to leave out "and contributions."
Clause 37 arises from the same problem of planning blight that we have been discussing for the last half-hour, and the Committee will have seen how Clause 32 make it obligatory for what is called the appropriate authority to purchase land which has been blighted by planning decisions in advance of its requirements. Among the appropriate authorities are local highway authorities, and, as my right hon. Friend told the House a few minutes ago, it is the intention of the government to put local authorities so far as possible in a position in which, financially, they can undertake this rather new duty imposed upon them in the interests of people whose property is affected by blight.
This Clause is an indication of how we go about it. The Clause gives the Minister of Transport extended powers to pay grants where a local authority purchases blighted land, and that is provided for in

subsection (1). Subsection (2) is a general extension of the Minister's power which enables him to contribute towards any loss which a local authority may incur from the time when it purchased the land up to the time when it comes to use it for the appropriate highway purpose. It does this by permitting the Minister to make annual contributions towards the amount by which the annual expenditure by the local authority on the land exceeds any annual income which it can obtain. Annual expenditure is explained in subsection (2). It is the cost of maintaining the land plus any loan charges which are payable. May I point out to the Committee that the third Amendment to Clause 37, in page 52, line 3, ensures that "loan charges" in this context includes the repayment of principal as well as interest.
That was the broad picture of the Clause, but during the Second Reading debate the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) pointed out a rather unexpected circumstance. It appears that the power of the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to make annual contributions of this kind under the 1909 Act was tied by the wording used by the draftsmen to his power to make contributions towards the cost of maintaining new roads. It happens that by Section 85 of the Local Government Act, 1929, such maintenance grants—I think they are called classification grants, but they are grants for the maintenance of new roads—ceased to be payable to, among other authorities, the London County Council, and also to county boroughs. I am told that a similar situation has arisen in the case of large burghs in Scotland. This was a deplorable situation which obviously we could not allow to continue without redress, and we seek to put it right by these Amendments.
The Amendments have a further effect which I think will commend itself to the Committee. They extend the power of the Minister to pay grants on an annual basis so long as the loan charges are still running even although the construction of the road has been completed. We think this will be much more flexible and certainly more reasonable. The Minister should have the power to continue to pay grant on an annual basis. The consequential Amendment to the Title is a purely drafting Amendment. It


deletes the reference to contributions. I hope the Committee will accept the Amendments.

Mr. Skeffington: I know that the London County Council was perturbed about the peculiar arrangements, but as these Amendments go some way to meet that I think they should be supported.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 51, line 45, at end insert:
and
(b) any loan charges accruing due after the end of that period in respect of any money borrowed by the authority for the purpose of acquiring the land".

In page 52, line 3, at end insert:
and 'loan charges', in relation to any borrowed money, means the sums required for the payment of interest on that money and for the repayment thereof either by instalments or by means of a sinking fund".—[Mr. Hay.]

Clause as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42.—(PROVISIONS AS TO INQUIRIES, NOTICES AND REGULATIONS.)

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 55, line 18, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to the provisions of subsection (7) of section (Increase of certain Exchequer grants) of this Act".
I propose to move this Amendment quite shortly, but we attach considerable importance to it. The Amendment is brought in at this stage because part of the proposed new Clause involves money provisions which would be subject to approval by this House but not by another place. I move the Amendment formally. The Committee will find the proposed new Clause later in the Notice Paper.
The local authorities are spending, we are told, about £24 million a year in compensation. They will have to pay about another £8 million as a result of the Bill. That is to say, their costs will go up about one third of their total expenditure of this kind. That is a really serious matter. They have had their financial facilities cut very badly by Government policy. They have had to suffer difficulties in borrowing money and to pay high rates of interest on it. Even now, the rates are very high. They have been deprived of certain subsidies which they had before and they are finding the

general grant no more than enough to make things even, in the limited classes of service to which it applies.
Broadly speaking, local authorities are considerably worse off than they were some years ago. In some places, rates are rising and in others they are falling. If, by any unfortunate chance, this or a similar Government were to remain in office for a couple of years and practise a similar policy, there is no doubt that rates would have to go up sharply. Whatever is said about the general grant this year, it is more than doubtful whether it will be sufficient in the second year, after the General Election.
Be that as it may, the general question is: ought the Government to contribute something to the cost of what they are putting upon local authorities? The proposed new Clause says that it should be taken into account for the purposes of the general grant and further that there should be an exceptional contribution towards the increases in rates. Very often those increases will be in services which are already attracting grant, and to the extent that they attract grant the additional expenditure will attract grant too. Beyond the grant the expenditure will have to be carried by the local authorities.
The proposal here is that the prescribed percentage, which is not to be less than half and may be the whole of the additional expenditure involved should be carried by the Government. This is, of course, within the terms of the Money Resolution. There is an express provision for other grants. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman expected that, when faced with this additional expenditure for reasons which are not their concern but are matters of Government policy, local authorities would wish to have some contribution. They have had so many financial knocks from the Government that they probably would not expect it, but we would like to see a substantial contribution of that character in respect of this additional expenditure.
Accordingly, in moving this Amendment, which leads up to the new Clause, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able briefly to explain the position and that he can concede what we ask for in the Amendment.

Mr. Bevins: I certainly accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's invitation


to speak briefly but I cannot accept his Amendment. I appreciate that although he has spoken very concisely he and his hon. Friends attach importance to this proposal which is designed, of course, to make the Government pay a larger share of the cost of land acquisition than they pay under the existing law. I do not propose to comment in detail on the proposals embodied in the proposed new Clause but it might be useful to the Committee if I were to recapitulate the position under the present law.
10.15 p.m.
First of all, there are certainly land acquisitions which are related to grant-aided services. For example, there is the cost of acquiring land for the comprehensive redevelopment of an area of extensive war damage. There grants are payable under the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. If one takes the example of land acquired for police purposes where there is a specific grant payable by the Home Office in the case of future acquisitions for the police, the normal 50 per cent. grant would apply.
The hon. and learned Member said something which I thought a little cryptic as to the application of the general grant in this context. I should like to make quite clear to the Committee that in fixing the general grant for the first two-year period, 1959–61, consideration was given to the full amount estimated as the extra burden to be added to the estimates of spending submitted by local authorities to cover the increased cost in the form of higher loan charges due to the Bill under this first two years of the grant. That has been done. As future general grant orders are laid regard will be had to the expenditure of local authorities.
The Committee would do well to remember that rate deficiency grants are paid to local authorities whose rate resources are below the national average and the grants are to some extent governed by local expenditure. To that extent the greater the expenditure incurred on land acquisitions the greater will be the amount payable by way of rate deficiency grants. In short, poorer local authorities, which get rate deficiency grants, will be helped for the reasons I have given.

Mr. Sparks: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether, in view of what he has said, that local authorities will be left with 50 per cent. of the additional burden?

Mr. Bevins: That is what I am coming to. The question is what is likely to be involved by the change in the basis of compensation; how is it in practice likely to affect local government finance? As the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) rightly said the Financial Memorandum to the Bill quoted a figure of £8 million a year as the increased capital cost to local authorities. The additional amount was put at £1 million a year capital grant towards classified roads expenditure and £150,000 in the first year —rising annually—for other grants—general grant, rate deficiency grant and the remaining specific grants. The probable increase in capital costs to local authorities is about £8 million a year.
Most of that additional capital will he raised by local authorities on a 60-year basis. If one assumes the current Public Works Loan Board rate interest, the loan charges would come to about £475,000 a year. The annual equivalent of grants by the Ministry of Transport is about £60,000, which, with the estimated £150,000 on other grants, gives a total additional Exchequer contribution of £210,000. At the end of the first year, the probability is that local government in general will have to find loan charges of an additional £475,000 a year, but set off against that there should be additional Exchequer contributions to the tune of about £210,000. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) that that is rather less than 50 per cent., but he will appreciate that housing does not rank for specific grants.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering rather implied that this would be a heavy burden on local authorities. With great respect, that is not so. Even after a period of ten years' increased commitments, because of the new code of compensation, it is unlikely that the total increase in rate poundage throughout the country will exceed ld. in the £. I suggest that if we try to keep this in perspective we find that the financial incidence on local government throughout the country is likely to be very small, indeed.

Mr. Mitchison: Noting the Government's reluctance to make even a small contribution towards the financial difficulties of local authorities, we propose to divide the Committee.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 117, Noes 162.

Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Temple, John M.


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Rawlinson, Peter
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Nairn, D. L. S.
Redmayne, M.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Neave, Airey
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Nicholls, Harmer
Ridsdale, J. E.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Roper, Sir Harold
Wade, D. W.


Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, w.)


Oakshott, H. D.
Shepherd, William
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Henclon, N.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wall, Pattiok


Osborne, C.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, s.)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Woroester)


Page, R. G.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Webster, David


Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Steward, Harold (Stookport, S.)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Partridge, E.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwioh.W.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Peel, W. J,
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Studholme, Sir Henry
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Summers, Sir Spencer



Pitt, Miss E. M.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Powell, J. Enoch
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Colonel J. H. Harrison and




Mr. Brooman-White.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(RECENT ENTRY UNDER LONG-STANDING NOTICE TO TREAT.)

(1) Where a notice to treat was served before the sixth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, by a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers, and—


(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (1) of section thirteen of this Act are fulfilled in relation to that notice, but


(b) on a date after the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight, and before the commencement of this Act, the acquiring authority exercised a right of entering upon and taking possession of land in pursuance of that notice,


the following provisions of this section shall have effect.


(2) It shall be the duty of the acquiring authority, before the end of the period of six months beginning with the commencement of this Act, to serve on the person for the time being entitled to the relevant interest a notice in the prescribed form.


(3) The form prescribed under the last preceding subsection shall include such explanation of the provisions applicable by virtue of this section as appears to the Minister to be requisite for informing recipients of notices under that subsection of their rights and obligations under those provisions.


(4) Where subsection (1) of this section applies, the provisions of section fourteen of this Act (except subsection (5) of that section) shall have effect as if the notice to treat had been a notice to which section thirteen of this Act applied, and the acquiring authority had served a notice of intention to proceed in respect of the compulsory acquisition of the relevant interest in pursuance of that notice to treat, and as if that notice of intention to proceed—


(a) had been served on the date on which the acquiring authority served a notice under subsection (2) of this section in respect of the relevant interest or


(b) in default of service of such a notice under subsection (2) of this section, had been served at the end of the period of six months beginning with the commencement of this Act.


(5) In the application of this section to Scotland, for the reference to the sixth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, there shall be substituted a reference to the thirteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven.—[Mr. Bevins.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move. That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause gives effect to an undertaking given in Committee by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), by making it impracticable for an acquiring authority to frustrate Clauses 12 and 13 by taking possession of land under long standing notices to treat between the date of the introduction of the Bill and the passage of the Bill into law. I think that those hon. Gentlemen who were members of the Committee will be conversant with this relatively narrow point which was at issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in line 6, to leave out from "the" to "and" in line 7 and to insert:

seventeenth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine".
This Amendment is an attempt to reach a compromise on a position which is not, perhaps, of very great importance. Nevertheless, I think that the Government are going a little too far in the other direction. The date that we suggest is the date when the debate took place upstairs and when the Minister made his original announcement that he was going to consider the position.
It seems reasonable to us that a local authority which after that announcement and after it had had a warning that there might quite likely be an alteration of the date then took action was acting as a result of the knowledge of what was proposed. But, other things being equal, I should have thought that even the Government would have agreed that it was desirable to avoid making things retrospective.
This really is retrospective legislation, though not of major importance. Those local authorities who have had long-


standing notices to treat had recognised powers under the law as it existed at the time. In many cases it is not their fault that the notices have been of long standing. Very often it may have been due to difficulty in getting loan sanctions and other approvals from the Government. Therefore, it is a little hard that when such local authorities have been acting perhaps under restraint from the Government, at any rate acting in full conformity with the law, their position should be altered for the worse by legislation which is, as I say, retrospective.
In order to steer a mid-course between the position at present defined in the Bill and this very drastic proposal put forward in the new Clause, we suggest the date which is quite specifically that when the local authorities received notice that something was going to be done to alter the position as set out in the original draft of the Bill. I hope it will be possible for the Government to accept the Amendment as a reasonable compromise.

Mr. Mitchison: I wish to say a word or two in support of the Amendment which, I hope, the Minister is going to accept. As my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) rightly said, it does not involve a very large sum of money or any very serious considerations from that point of view. It is, of course, a question of whether a Bill having been introduced in one form we ought to penalise people who exercised a right which they had under the Bill in its original form by a new Clause brought in afterwards.
It is not on a very large scale, but it is still retrospective legislation as far as the local authorities involved are concerned. The local authorities which, reading the Bill in its original form, woke up and proceeded to take action were doing something which at that time was perfectly lawful and which would have remained lawful if the Bill had been passed in that form. On this day in February, 17th February, the right hon. Gentleman in Committee announced that he was going to make the change in the Bill which would make that form of action unlawful. If he applied that change backwards, as he proposes to do in his new Clause, he would be enacting retrospective legislation in relation to authorities who acted before the date he made the announcement.
The right hon. Gentleman has one piece of retrospective legislation in the Bill already. We are trying to save him from putting a second into the Bill. He is, of course, an expert on what warnings are required in case of retrospective legislation, an expertise he derives from dealing, in the Finance Bill last year, with a question connected with dividend stripping. I am quite certain that in that instance, at any rate, he gave a clear and sufficient warning. We take no objection to that warning, but what we do take objection to is any action in relation to what was perfectly lawful and within the rights of local authorities before the warning he gave.
I make one other qualification. I could understand the original form of the Clause if there were any question here of malpractice or even of sharp practice, if I may put it that way, on any large scale. The right hon. Gentleman told us in Standing Committee he had not heard of a single case. There may have been one; I do not know; but he had not heard of it at that time. Certainly there is no question of a widespread practice, and the amount involved is pretty small and, so far as I can see, there is no moral question in it at all. In these circumstances, is it really right to introduce what is retrospective legislation—for a very small amount, in cases where no real moral question arises at all, and where it is very doubtful whether there has been any action of the kind during the relevant period?
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend that it is really just as well to keep to the tradition of the Committee and the reason which inspired the tradition, the tradition that we do not have retrospective legislation unless we give a warning beforehand, and certainly that we should not extend it to a case like this where nothing unlawful has been done, where indeed it is doubtful whether there is any single case at all of such a thing, and where, on any view of the matter, nothing but a trivial amount can be involved.
It would be unkind of me to say at this hour of the night that principles seem to have been sold rather cheap in this Bill, but one would seem to have been sold bargain cheap. I do not know for how much, but it seems to be for a trivial amount. I hope the Government


are going to do the right thing in a small way for once rather late at night.

Mr. Bevins: This really is a very small point both in amount and in practice as well. As I understand it, what hon. Gentlemen opposite are saying is that the new compensation should apply only in cases where possession of land is taken between the date of the Committee undertaking and the Act itself, and that, therefore, there would be excluded from the provision earlier cases which may have occurred between the date of the Bill and the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend.
I entirely agree, of course, that there is a small element of retrospection in the Government's new Clause, but, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) himself pointed out, my right hon. Friend did say, during the Committee consideration of this matter, that to the best of his knowledge there had been no cases since the Bill had been tabled. The best information I can get at the moment is that that is still the case. The Committee would be well advised to look not only at the principle of retrospection, small as it is here, but also at the intention that lies behind the Bill and the Clause. My right hon. Friend's feeling is that on any view it would be rather intolerable that a local authority, having waited for at least 11½ years since giving notice to treat, should be able at this stage to defeat the plain intention of the Bill. That would be rather unreasonable. It would be unfair to penalise the owners in that way.
As to retrospection, I have had plenty of advise about it in the House of Commons. I know that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering will not take it unkindly if I remind him that the Opposition welcomed the principle of retrospection in the case of what has come to be known as the "Banstead" Amendment.

Mr. MacColl: Why thunder and roar and wave the rod of argument if there are no cases? If there have been no cases and the local authorities have behaved like perfectly reasonable and respectable people and have not disregarded the plain intention of Parliament why depart from the principle of not indulging in retrospective legislation, if it can possibly be avoided, in order to

shake a fist at the local authorities? It is a little offensive. If there is not the evidence to show that the local authorities have done this, why not be reasonable and assume that they have not? At the worst, if it turns out that one or two have not behaved respectably, the loss will be very small. But it would at least have saved the principle not to have made this provision and we should have avoided this gratuitously offensive treatment of local authorities.

Mr. Ross: If it is wrong, as my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) suggests, for this to be done in respect of England and Wales, how much more wrong it is in respect of Scotland? There is its Scottish application. I am sorry that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is not here. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes has pointed out, and we have had it from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, that the Government know of no case in which, where there is outstanding notice to treat, the local authority has raced in somehow to avoid paying out compensation. But we have the additional advantage in relation to Scotland that the whole question of notice to treat does not arise—not just cases in which local authorities have raced in since the publication of the Bill to avoid something. On the word of the Solicitor-General for Scotland, the whole thing is academic to Scotland.

Mr. Willis: Purely academic.

Mr. Ross: There was a certain amount of controversy as to whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman used the word "purely" or not.
When, in one of my shorter speeches in Standing Committee, I had asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman for information about the number of cases in Scotland, he replied:
We have tried to get it from the local authorities.
evidently without success—
As far as we can trace, it does not look as if it reaches even double figures. I put it as an academic matter in Scotland …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 17th February, 1959; c. 846.]
That is not the narrow point of local authorities racing in in the case of a longstanding notice to treat to get an advantage out of the existing position. This is


a question of the existence at all of the problem of long-standing notice to treat. The Government could not produce evidence of the existence of any cases but they have guessed and said, "If there are any, there are probably six or seven."
10.45 p.m.
With regard to the six or seven cases, surely it should have been possible to find out. Has anyone given any indication of intending to jump the gun? Whatever else should be applied to Scotland, this should not. It is not an insult to Scotland; it is an insult to the intelligence of the Committee that it should be dealing with a very narrow aspect of something which was admitted by the Solicitor-General for Scotland to be purely academic.
I notice in the Scottish application:
In the application of this section to Scotland, for the reference to the sixth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, there shall be substituted a reference to the thirteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven.
That is the only change that is made in relation to dates. So as far as I can see, this is to begin on a date before the commencement of the Act. Can anyone tell me when the Act will begin in Scotland? It will begin for England and Wales one month after it is passed; but it is not so in Scotland. That is only for Part I. Part II in Scotland is to start on 16th May, 1959. Which is to be the date for the application of the Clause in Scotland? Why should there be this slipshod idea that there are two dates in relation to the commencement of the Act in Scotland?
Clause 46 (2) states:
Subject to the next following subsection, this Act shall come into operation at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is passed.
Clause 46 (3) states:
Part II of this Act in its application to Scotland shall come into operation on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine.
So we have two dates for Scotland, a date for Part I and a date for Part II. Which is the relevant part in this respect? We are not given any indication.
Perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary will enlighten us as to when this retrospective provision will apply to Scotland. The chances are that it will be a greater period of retrospective legislation for Scotland,

although there is no justification for its application to Scotland at all. I hope the hon. Gentleman will enlighten us as to why it was decided that the Clause should apply to Scotland and when it will apply to Scotland.

Mr. N. Macpherson: As the Clause will plainly go into Part I, it will plainly be subject to Clause 46 (2); that is to say, it will come into operation in the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is passed.
With regard to the question of the number of cases covered, as my right hon. and learned Friend explained, even if there was only one case it would still be desirable that it should be covered. We do not know that there are no cases. This matter has to cover not only local authorities but statutory undertakers and Crown departments having powers to acquire land. It very often happens when legislating that one does not know exactly what the scope will be, but if there are any cases they should be covered.

Mr. Ross: The words used by the Joint Under-Secretary epitomise the attitude of the Scottish Office to the Bill. He does not know. If the meaning is that the Clause is to come into operation with Part I, would it not be far better to say so than to say "with the commencement of the Act" when in relation to Scotland it has no meaning since the Act has a different time of operation in relation to Part I and Part II? If it is necessary to have a Scottish application, would it not be better to be precise about it?

Mr. Macpherson: I should have thought that the answer to that was simple. This new Clause refers to Clause 13 and is thus bound to be near it and thus in Part I. I should have thought that that would be clear without its being stated. If we said that it was to go into Part I, it would look funny when it was in Part I.

Amendment negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(ASSUMPTIONS IN RESPECT OF COMPENSATION FOR DWELLING HOUSES ON BASIS OF SITE VALUE.)

Where in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Act, 1957, compensation in respect of the dwelling houses in a clearance area falls to be determined on the basis of the site value thereof and the site of any of the said


dwelling houses has on account of the dimensions thereof a value which is less than the value which such site would have on the assumption that it formed part of a larger site which would be capable of redevelopment it shall be assumed in determining the amount of the compensation that such site forms a part proportionate to its area of such larger site.—[Mr. Corfield.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move. That the Clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman (Sir Charles MacAndrew): A number of new Clauses and Amendments go with this Clause. They are: the new Clauses in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page)—(Inclusion of adjoining land in assessment for compensation) and (Compensation in respect of unfit houses)—the Amendment in Schedule 2, page 63, line 36, at end insert:
(5) In any case where land is compulsorily acquired under the Act of 1957 at site value and the compensation therefor has not been agreed or paid before the coming into operation of this Act, the acquiring authority may, on being satisfied that a case of hardship arises, pay the owner of such land such compensation, not exceeding the current market value of building land in the district, as the authority may think fit and without taking into account any diminution in value which may be attributable to the size or situation of any individual plot of land forming a part of the land to be acquired,
and the Government Amendments in page 63, lines 43 to 47, page 64, line 26, page 66, lines 1, 5, 36 to 38, and page 66 to leave out lines 39 and 40.

Mr. Corfield: The object of the new Clause standing in my name is to try to meet the very difficult problem which arises in cases of slum clearance where, as in many cases, the sites of the slum houses are very small. Under the present law, the interpretation which has been put upon this state of affairs by district valuers is that the individual sites can be considered only as such and that no account can be taken of the possibility of their development in conjunction with neighbouring sites.
In consequence, because a particular site has been too small for development on its own, it has received only a nominal value, and we have had many cases in which sums of 10s., 15s., at the most. £1 have been paid for what to some people has been a home. In these days it is impossible to persuade anybody that

£1 is a reasonable sum for a house in which, in many cases, the occupant has been living perfectly happily.
I appreciate that the Bill as a whole will have some effect in that the restrictions of the Third Schedule of the 1947 Act no longer apply, so it is possible to visualise a somewhat larger house on the plot if that plot contains any garden or frontage other than the actual ground on which the house was standing. But it will not cover all cases, and I have attempted to give a reasonable price by aggregating the plots in the area and valuing each plot on the basis of the proportion it bears to the value of the whole area.
I am well aware that this departs from the principle of market value, but that need not cause us any great concern, since we have departed from the ordinary rules of compensation in other legislation in favour of the owner-occupier. I should have thought that there was a very strong case for the owner-occupier of a small house receiving something which took account of the value of the site for the purpose for which it was to be used and would be used as part of a much bigger site, rather than regarding it purely as an individual plot.
Under the present arrangement, there is the absurd situation in which, if the land is acquired and used for a car park it may have greater value than if it is used for housing, for the simple reason that it is possible to park three or four cars on the site of a small house, a plot which would not be big enough to take a new house. So we get the absurd situation in which the plot may be worth anything between £20 or £30 a year for car parking, and only £1, as a capital sum, for rehousing.
Among the new Clauses which we are discussing are many other suggestions. I have put forward this one not as the perfect answer but as one answer to a problem which is very urgent if we are to proceed with the much-needed slum clearance and also retain a degree of consent on the part of the governed in respect of the government exercised by local authorities in the matter of slum clearance with which the House has charged them. I have been accused by hon. Members opposite of seeking to put money into the hands of rich landlords and deprive local authorities of their due,


but let us remember that local government will never be efficient if it produces hostility on the part of the people whom it is its duty to govern.

Mr. Page: The new Clauses we are now discussing have been given rise to by cases which have struck the country as being grossly unfair to owners in the past. These cases have caused pressure to be put on the Government to bring in legislation to amend the law of compensation for compulsory purchases. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) has dealt with cases of small sites which it is impossible to redevelop because of byelaw restrictions, and so on, on the size of plot on which one can build a house, so that the plot when cleared is worth, on its own, only a very small amount—a nominal figure of £1—and yet, if an acquiring authority acquires a number of such plots, the resulting area of land is of considerable value.
It seems most unfair to an owner who has been deprived of his small plot for a nominal figure of £1 to find that the acquiring authority, by acquiring a number of other similar plots, obtains an area of land which may he worth 10, 20 or 50 times as much as it paid for the total number of small plots.
The new Clause which has been moved and the new Clause—(Inclusion of adjoining land in assessment for compensation)—deal with the subject, and in the Clause—(Compensation in respect of unfit houses)—I have attempted to deal with the problem in a rather different way, because it is a little wider than the question of small sites. When a clearance order is made it is justified by the houses within the clearance area being said to be unfit. They are said to be unfit because they do not comply with certain conditions provided in Section 4 of the Housing Act, 1957, but in many cases they are not unfit in the sense that it is impossible to live in them.
11.0 p.m.
If the conditions of Section 4 of the Housing Act, 1957, were applied to 50 per cent. of houses in this country these houses might well be said to be unfit. The conditions of Section 4 are very stringent.

Mr. Mitchison: Oh, really.

Mr. Page: Yes, certainly. One has only to look at these conditions. Construed in a harsh way, 50 per cent. of houses could be said to be unfit in accordance with Section 4. The result is that there are frequently houses within a clearance order which still have a good life, some only a short life but some a comparatively long life. They may well be happily occupied as homes. If they are subject to a compulsory purchase order there are three ways in which compensation may be calculated.
Firstly, it may be calculated purely and simply on site value under Section 59 (2) of the 1957 Housing Act. That is the general rule, and the owner will get his nominal sum of, say, £1 for a small plot. Secondly, if the house has been well maintained, Section 60 of the Act comes into operation and a well maintained payment may be paid to the owner. That is only a maximum payment of three times the rateable value, which is not very much for a house which is a home, occupied and perhaps with a reasonable life to it. Thirdly, there may be a payment of full compulsory purchase value if there is an owner-occupier who was in possession in 1955 and is still in possession, but who purchased after 1939.
I cannot see why, if it is fair to give that sort of owner his full compulsory purchase value, the same should not be given to other owners. I feel that the site value sections of the 1957 Act are out of date, are resented by the country as a whole, and act harshly on owners and owner-occupiers of property which still has a life to run, The Clause on page 1441—(Compensation in respect of unfit houses)—is intended to abolish the site value compensation provisions and apply to compulsory purchase under a clearance order those provisions which now apply to what I would call the 1955 owner-occupier who purchased after 1939. But even in his case the value of the property would be reduced by any particularly bad conditions, sanitary or otherwise, that come into Part III of the Third Schedule of the 1957 Housing Act. He does not get payment for a really unfit house. He gets payment for the real value of the house.
The position when a compulsory purchase order is placed on a property of the sort of which I have been speaking is that the owner-occupier, or the owner of a property with a tenant in it, has been


assessed for rates for that house. He is told that for the purpose of rates it is the rateable value, and he is made to pay rates on it. It is assessed at a certain annual value for the purpose of Income Tax Schedule A, and he has been called on to pay tax on that annual value. But when a compulsory purchase order is placed on it he is told that the property has no value at all. One cannot be surprised that he should feel an injustice has been done to him. For two purposes connected with local government and central government finances he is told that his property has a value, but when it is taken away from him, for the purpose of compensation, he is told that it has no value at all.
My right hon. Friend has endeavoured to remedy this position slightly in his new Clause by placing, as it were, a minimum sort of compensation in the kind of cases I have been describing of once the gross value. But we may be dealing here with properties of a value of £10 or £15, very small sums, and even if a compensation of once the gross value were paid it would mean a very small amount—certainly in the case of an owner occupier who purchased his house during the past few years.
In some areas which shortly will become clearance areas there are people who have purchased small terraced houses perhaps with the front door opening on to the pavement, but well-built houses, which might last for another 80 or 100 years. They may not have a damp course, or there may be some other reason why these properties do not accord with the provisions of Section 4 of the 1957 Act, and so they are unfit. But they provide good homes and would continue to do so for a number of years to come. Many such properties have been purchased in recent years for sums amounting to hundreds of pounds. In such cases amounts of £10 to f15 are to be offered as compensation. I feel that the Bill does not deal with such cases where lack of compensation gave rise to an outcry for an amendment of the law on compensation for compulsory purchase.

Mr. Norman Cole: My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has referred to the technical aspects of this matter and the

amounts of money involved. This Government—indeed, I hope any Government—will be engaged in improving the standard of housing in the country and, in the course of that operation, it will be necessary to re-plan certain areas and build houses on cleared areas.
Over the years many thousands of people have been and will be affected. They will lose the homes in which they have lived quite happily and where they might have spent the rest of their lives. Agreed they will be re-housed in more modern accommodation by the local authority, which will be a good thing. But owner-occupiers of these old properties regard them as a capital asset, not worth a fortune, perhaps, but several hundreds of pounds. If they bought the property within the last three or four years they may have paid several hundreds of pounds, and now they find that their house falls short of modern requirements regarding the amount of land involved on which a modern house can be built. Through that dimensional accident some of these older houses, unless they happen to be on a corner with a return frontage and have enough cartilage to accommodate a new house, fall short of modern planning dimensions and get only a token payment. It is not true to say that because a site does not measure up to modern dimensions it is of no value. The strength and size of the total of the sites as a whole is made up of an aggregation of all its parts, whether it is developed by a local authority or a private developer, and, especially in the centre of a town, the actual individual site has a reasonable value.
Leaving aside the question of academics and technical matters about size, dimensions and modern development as opposed to development of a hundred years ago, this proposal involves ordinary common justice to people who are to be disturbed because of the nation's betterment of its housing. It is enough for them to be disturbed and uprooted, in many cases in their later years, after perhaps going into debt or spending their savings to acquire the house, without then finding that their property under a clearance order is worth £1 or possibly less. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what It; is doing in the proposed new Schedule, but if he can go further he will earn the gratitude not only of many in the House but also of many outside.

Mr. Brooke: I am sure my hon. Friends have done quite right in bringing to the attention of the Committee once again the position in which a number of owner-occupiers may find themselves: that is, having lived for sometime in a house which is condemned as unfit, they are offered no more than a few shillings under the existing law. That is a matter to which Parliament should give its attention.
In saying that, I must not be taken to go as far as to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who wishes by one of his new Clauses radically to alter the whole basis of compensation for unfit houses. The site value basis of compensation for unfit houses has been the law of the land for many years, and I am quite sure he will accept it from the Government that any change in that basis ought not to be made, as it were, by a side wind at this time or place in a Town and Country Planning Bill which is dealing with wholly different matters. Let us keep all these things under review, let us examine the effect of legislation from time to time, but I certainly could not go as far as that new Clause of his.
I think that what is mainly in his mind arid the minds of other hon. Friends is to try to discover some means of helping these owner-occupiers who in past years and up to the present have been in same cases receiving paltry sums by way of compensation for the house which has provided a roof over their heads, albeit in some cases an unsatisfactory one. I would point out to my hon. Friends that this Bill, even if we do not add to it any of these new Clauses or make any of these Amendments, will alter the position radically in two ways.
11.15 p.m.
First of all, up to the present time development value has been tied to the 1947 figures, and in a good many of these cases where the compensation is derisory it will be found that what we know as the existing use value compensation, plus the 1947 development value, has meant hardly anything at all, because in 1947 the land was deemed not to have development value. If we cast our minds back to those days, it was only two years after the war, and it was then hard to envisage a time in the near future when it would be possible to pull down houses which, however bad they might have been,

were urgently required for housing the people. The slum clearance programme could not at that time have got under way.
So, there are areas which have development values now, thanks to all that has happened since 1947, but which were adjudged twelve years ago to have no development value. Consequently that arm under the compensation law gave them virtually no compensation at all. The other arm was the existing use value, and we have to remember that in the legislation which this Bill amends, the Third Schedule of the 1947 Act imposed a restriction that, where a building was demolished, the site could be valued only on the assumption that the building demolished could be replaced by one of roughly similar size. But some of those slum area houses were very small, and a site in a development area too small to take a house not in conformity with the by-laws of the present day was virtually worthless for the purposes of existing use value.
Now, both of these restrictions are swept away, and, we think, rightly swept away. The current market value of the land will apply. Then all the other Clauses of this Bill will come into operation and, in a good many cases, there will be a real market value in that land. This land which will be sought after might be used for industrial or commercial purposes, or for housing, but the cleared site will be valued in accordance with the possibility of development which this Bill will adjudge to be suitable. Therefore, these difficulties will not recur and, so far as I can judge the matter, which I have gone into as carefully as I can because of the importance which I attach to it, certainly more than half of the cases where up to now only some nominal payment has been made are to be remedied by this Bill. A material payment of compensation will be payable in place of the nominal sum which has been paid hitherto.
I must, however, warn the House that if we leave the Bill as it stands there would be types of case where the compensation payment would remain nominal. These are the cases which my hon. Friends seek to assist. There are two proposed new Clauses designed, I think, to try to give an additional payment to owners in such cases, through the


medium of something not unlike the global assessment which, the House will remember, I criticised on an earlier Amendment. Without going into all the detail of whether it could be right to value a series of small sites as one site, as if they were all put together, and then make an apportionment of the value between the different sites, I would simply say to my hon. Friends that, even if one adds a percentage to the original sum, should the original sum be small the percentage itself will be small. Even if one could add, let us say, 50 per cent. by one of the expedients Which they suggest, it would not be great consolation to someone who was to receive 10s. for his site under the existing law if he found that, with the benefit of the 50 per cent. increase, he would have 15s. Moreover, if one applied such a percentage increase as is implied by the new Clauses, as I read them, to the larger sites which have industrial or commercial value, they would gain the 50 per cent. increase, which might be a very considerable sum. I do not think that that is what my hon. Friends are seeking to do: they are seeking to help the owner of the small site.
The two cases to which the Committee should address itself are these. First, there is the case of the unfit house which is built on land which appears to have no market value in that no private purchaser is in the market for it. One can visualise that sort of land—jammed between two converging railway lines, not suitable for industry or commerce, with no private house builder seeking after it. The land really does appear to have no market value—yet, no doubt, it has been the site of the home of owner-occupiers who have lived there for many years. They have grown accustomed to the disadvantages of the site through long familiarity and through the feeling which we all have for our own homes. That is one type of case, and one cannot cure that by merging several small sites into one.
The other type of case, which is even more difficult to help, is the case where, although the site itself may attract some value in the open market, nevertheless there is some kind of annual charge on the land which, as it were, eats up the compensation so that the owner-occupier finds that he is left with only nominal compensation, such material compensa-

tion as there may have been going to benefit the owner of the ground charge, not the occupier. That type of case, according to the analysis I have made, accounts for a surprisingly large proportion of the whole of this group of nominal payments.
In those circumstances, the Government have very carefully considered whether some remedy could be found. It must necessarily be an ad hoc remedy. One cannot arrive at a solution by any jockeying with the system of valuation, nor can one overcome the difficulty where the compensation is devoured by an annual charge except by securing for the owner-occupier some payment of money which will not be so devoured, but which will be safeguarded. That is what the Government have sought to do in the Amendments which stand in my name. There are corresponding Amendments for Scotland in the name of my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State.
We do not put these to the Committee as having some logical basis which could be defended against all comers. Our case is rather that the present system is unconscionable, and where there is a situation which is unconscionable it is the duty of Parliament to try to find a remedy, even if it be an ad hoc remedy.
I will conclude by seeking to explain the significance of these Amendments that stand in our names. Their purpose is this. They seek to provide a kind of floor for the amount of compensation for every owner-occupier of an unfit house acquired by a local authority. There must, of course, be qualifying conditions. One does not want to extend this to everybody. The last thing one would wish to do is to recreate a market in slum houses. I think that all hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would regard that as deplorable.
The qualifying conditions which are set out in the Government's proposal are, first, that the owner must have been living in the house at the date of the making of the compulsory purchase order. Secondly, he must keep his interest at the date of the service of notice to treat, or, if he should die before the notice is served, then up to the date of his death. Thirdly, he must be entitled to the service of a


notice to treat that is, his interest must be for more than a year. That, in passing, is in line with the special owner-occupier compensation introduced by the 1956 Act.
Subsection (2) of the main Amendment provides that this compensation floor, as I have called it, should be the gross annual value of the house for rating purposes. If the owner-occupier occupies only part of the house then he will get the apportioned share of the value.
Subsection (3) lays down that in calculating whether an owner-occupier is entitled to this floor of compensation, account shall be taken of any compensation which he would otherwise receive for his interest, including any well-maintained payment, but not any payment for disturbance as distinct from payment for acquisition of the revelant interest.
Subsection (4, b) provides that the special owner-occupier compensation provided in what was originally the 1956 Act and is now payable under Part II of the Second Schedule of the Housing Act. 1957, shall be brought into account.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain one small point? If the owner-occupier gets compensation on the basis of a well-maintained house, will it not always be more than the floor introduced by this Amendment?

Mr. Brooke: Yes. It would in the normal case. I was simply seeking to explain that the owner-occupier would not get both. If from one or other of the provisions he was receiving more than that, he would not get this in addition. This is frankly a long-stop provision. I was seeking to explain finally that this floor is related in the Government's proposals solely to the owner-occupier's own interest. He will become entitled to it irrespective of the fact that there is a ground landlord who may be receiving the bulk of any compensation payable in respect of the site.
I hope that the Committee will feel that this is both a reasonable and an ingenious method of seeking to remedy what is undoubtedly an unconscionable situation in the law as it stands. The main provisions of the Bill, as I have explained, will rectify the position of the majority of cases. If we went any further than that, there would remain these

other classes of cases, smaller may be, but deserving of sympathy nevertheless—the cases where the land has no market value, and the cases where compensation is eaten up by the existence of an annual ground charge. I submit to the Committee that it is desirable that we should seek to make some provision for those cases, and I trust that this plan will be acceptable to both sides of the Committee as an earnest attempt to rectify this situation which, I submit, Parliament ought not to allow to continue.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: This is, of course, a serious matter for those concerned, but perhaps I may be allowed to say that I listened to some of the speeches in support of the various new Clauses with some amusement. These, apparently, are the cases which gave rise to an outcry to amend the law of compensation, and these are the cases which have attracted attention. That may or may not be so, but if it is the fact we are now coming down to what they are to get out of it. I wonder whether they are in fact the cases which have attracted attention and caused the outcry.
The right hon. Gentleman's new Clause, to which I shall come in a moment, is the only one on the Paper which is limited to owner-occupiers. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know quite well what they are proposing in their new Clauses and Amendments. All of them would have secured additional compensation, other than the right hon. Gentleman's new Clause, for that somewhat unsympathetic figure the slum landlord, just as they would have secured it for the owner-occupier.

Mr. Corfield: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that the big man will get the high sum in any case because he owns contiguous sites which are developable, so that my new Clause, anyhow, is very much in favour of the small man. I am surprised to find the hon. and learned Gentleman making the point he is, because my proposal is precisely the same idea as that he was pushing earlier.

Mr. Mitchison: I do not think the hon. Gentleman need be so surprised. He put down, as did other people, Amendments which were intended to apply to the slum landlord just as they apply to owner-occupiers. They could perfectly well


have limited them to the owner-occupiers if they had chosen. They knew perfectly well that their Amendments were not limited to them.
Let us consider the owner-occupier for a minute. The right hon. Gentleman explained that the owner-occupier would get much more under the Bill anyhow, and that, he said, in conjunction with changes relating to development value. I think it is just as well even at this late hour to remind the Committee what the Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee on this matter. This is what he said:
When one turns to the ordinary case of the owner-occupier who is subject to compulsory purchase procedures, then we find that, as a general rule, the owner-occupier does in fact receive the market value from the acquiring authority.
I said as a question:
Now?
The answer was:
Yes, now, because in the vast majority of cases affecting the houses of owner occupiers, existing use value and market value are identical figures, because as a general rule there is no development value. In fact, the cases of injustice under the existing law are those where there is a real disparity between existing use value and market value. Those are certainly not in the generality of cases, but are rare cases of owners of land, as such, and particularly on the fringes of our great cities." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D. 2nd December, 1958 c. 57.]
He agreed that farmers were the people most probably affected.
That is the position, and therefore by and large the owner-occupier, quite apart from this Bill, is in the vast majority of cases getting full market value already. I see the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) shaking his head, but the hon. Member for Crosby made a mistake in his facts to which I shall come in a moment. Meanwhile I think he might take it that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government probably knows the position almost as accurately as he does.
That is what the Ministry's spokesman said on this matter. We are not dealing, therefore, with the majority of owner-occupiers. As far as the Amendments in the names of back-benchers opposite are concerned, we are dealing with slum owners and owner-occupiers on exactly the same footing.

Mr. Page: The hon. and learned Gentleman keeps speaking of slum landlords. He is well acquainted with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Third Schedule to the Housing Act, 1957, which would prevent the landlord of a slum property obtaining compensation.

Mr. Mitchison: All I can say to the hon. Member is what I have said before to him, and I will not repeat it. All the Amendments happen to be confined to owner-occupiers. The Government have thought it necessary to do that for good and sufficient reason. We were told that the owner-occupiers' are hard cases, but the vast majority, to quote the Parliamentary Secretary, will not be affected by the Bill. Therefore, and I hope that it is not an un-Parliamentary expression, there is a certain element of humbug in some of the arguments put forward. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not take that unkindly.

Mr. Corfield: We certainly shall not after the humbug we have heard from the hon. and learned Member today.

Mr. Mitchison: If the hon. Member accuses me of humbug he is only saying what I have said to him. Therefore, I hope we shall take it on both sides of the Committee.
These are unfit houses. I was astounded at the hon. Member for Crosby saying that 50 per cent. of houses in the country were unfit to live in under the standard of fitness in the Housing Act. I never heard a more staggering statement from somebody whom I thought to have some knowledge of the matter. He has forgotten what is the standard. He said that the houses would be unfit if they had no damp course. That is not so. One has to consider other things beside dampness. The house has to be so far defective that it is unsuitable for habitation in that condition.
I agree that the definition in the Act was phrased by the Ministry of Circumlocution. I have always said so, but at the end of the day there must be a real unfitness of the place to live in, and it is nonsense to suggest that half the houses in the country are as bad as that. It would be a criticism of private landlordism which in my most exalted moments I have never been able to reach. I would


not go as far as the hon. Member for Crosby in that respect.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) told us that the Government have been encouraging the campaign to improve housing. The hon. Member had better put his head together with his hon. Friend the Member for Crosby as to the result, if 50 per cent, of the houses are unfit to live in.

Mr. Cole: Without necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the statistics of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), may I ask whether, even if those figures were correct, there has not been an improvement proceeding? Therefore, was not my remark quite logical?

Mr. Mitchison: The Government have done little about it, but I should be out of order if I went into that now and pointed out that the Government's slum clearance programme has merely done, or not quite done, what the local authorities said that they would be able to do before the Government started a slum clearance campaign.
Turning to the Amendment, which we must take more seriously, I agree that this is a case where something has to be done ad hoc. It is a narrowly-limited something, but there are cases, as has been stated, where a man feels the real hardship of receiving compensation on the basis, small though the figures may be, that is not the basis on which he has to pay local and central taxation.
I feel, therefore, that the Government's proposal here is properly limited to owner-occupiers and to putting a floor to what will be a minority of cases, because only a small minority of owner-occupiers will be affected. Quite a number of them will receive the "well-maintained" allowance and therefore this will not touch them, because it will be always a higher floor. At the end of the day, it will affect quite a small number of cases.
However, they will be the genuine hardship cases. Therefore, I and my English hon. Friends welcome the Government Amendment. We recognise it to be illogical and ad hoc, intended to deal only with a small number of cases, to make a very small contribution and not to have very much relation to whatever the motives may have been which led to the Bill. However, we are glad to see it introduced even at so late a stage.

Mr. Corfield: In the Committee stage earlier the Parliamentary Secretary said he believed that it would be possible in valuing the sites to envisage a marriage of sites. Has he considered the effect of paragraph 1 of the table in Clause 8? Does he still think that the marriage of sites can be contemplated? If not, will he consider the matter when the Bill goes to another place to ensure that that can take place in the valuation of these very small sites?

Mr. Brooke: I will consider further what my hon. Friend has said, but as I understand it everything will depend on whether a private purchaser would have the chance of marrying the sites. If he would not, then to treat the sites as capable of being married would give each of them something more than market value in the open market. That is the test which should be applied.

Mr. Corfield: Surely paragraph 1 of the table is a definite prohibition against the marriage of sites. That is what is worrying me.

Mr. Mitchison: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will remember that midnight marriages are not only unlawful but open to very serious objections on grounds of public morality.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause.—(RIGHT TO COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF PLANNING DECISIONS RELATING TO LAND HELD ON CHARITABLE TRUSTS.)

(1) The provision of this section shall have effect for enabling compensation to be claimed in respect of planning decisions made after the commencement of this Act whereby permission for the carrying out of new development of land to which this section applies is refused or is granted subject to conditions.

(2) This section shall apply to land to which the provisions of section eighty-five of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, applied provided such land was in the same ownership continuously from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, to the date of the planning decision.

(3) The provisions of Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act. 1954, shall apply to land qualified under this section subject to the following:—
(a) For the purposes of section seventeen of the Act of 1954 land qualified under this section shall have an unexpended balance of established development value provided such land would have established a claim for loss of development value in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Act of 1947 but for the provisions of subsection (2) of


section eighty-five of the Act of 1947 and such unexpended balance of established development value shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Acts of 1947 and 1954.

(4) Any dispute as to the determination of the unexpended balance of established development value and or of the amount of compensation payable under this section shall be referred to the Lands Tribunal.—[Mr. Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Page: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause does not deal with compensation for compulsory purchase. It relates to compensation for refusal of planning permission, and refusal to a certain special class—land held on charitable trusts. When planning permission is refused, the claim is for the unexpended balance of the established development value. But charities were never allowed to establish a development value, and, therefore, their claim is that much the less. That seems obviously unfair and unjust to charities owning land on charitable trusts. The Clause is an endeavour to remedy that injustice.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. Is this provision within the scope of the Bill and the scope of the Money Resolution? It relates entirely to refusals of planning permission, and while not saying that I disagree with the hon. Member's intentions in the matter—there is no doubt a good deal to be said for them—I wonder whether this subject comes within the scope of the Bill and within the scope of the Money Resolution. Nowhere else in the Bill is there any reference to compensation in respect of refusal of planning permission. Indeed, a criticism of the Bill has been that it did not deal with that matter and left it as it is at present while dealing with the general question of compensation. It would seem that if it were to be dealt with at all, it should be dealt with in a more comprehensive way than under the hon. Member's lone and belated new Clause.

Mr. Page: It is not a lone and belated new Clause. I had put down this provision for the Committee stage, but out of consideration for hon. Members I did not move it at that time. I am sure that it comes fully within the Title of the Bill. It is true that the rest of the Bill does

not include anything to do with compensation for refusal of planning permission, but that is no reason why it should not be introduced. Although I have put the case in a very short argument because of the hour, I urge that the provision comes within the scope of the Title and the Money Resolution.

Mr. Mitchison: May we have an answer, Sir Gordon?

The Deputy-Chairman: I understand that it is in order.

Mr. Bevins: As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said, this new Clause has nothing to do with compensation for compulsory purchase, nor is it related to the other provisions of the Bill. It is concerned solely with the question of compensation for planning restrictions.
As my hon. Friend said, under Section 85 of the 1947 Act no claim could be made under Part VI of that Act for loss of development against the £300 million fund in respect of what is known as "functional land" of a charity, but, on the other hand, no development charge was payable for the purposes of the charity. As no claims could be made against the fund, there were no unexpended balances from which compensation could be paid under the 1954 Act when planning permission was refused, or granted subject to conditions.
The new Clause is intended to create unexpended balances in such cases from which compensation would be payable only to the charity. This matter was fully discussed when the 1954 legislation was before the House. The then Minister of Housing explained that the position of charities had not been made the worse by either the 1953 or the 1954 legislation.
As was explained at the time, there was a further objection, which applies to this new Clause, against the proposal to set up an unexpended balance equal to the claim which might have been established. In many cases it would be impossible to ascertain the amount of the claim, because the claim represented the difference between the unrestricted market value of the land and the value of the land restricted to its existing use. Existing use value of functional land, such as a church or charity, is sometimes quite incapable of assessment by reference to the open market.
It was largely for that reason that charities were given exceptional treatment in the 1947 Act, because functional land could not very well be brought within the financial provisions of that Act. Clearly, what was thought to be undesirable in 1947 would be wrong at this point, and even more formidable were it to be done retrospectively, which is the purpose of the new Clause.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.—(ACQUISITION OF HOUSES AS BEING UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION.)

Amendments made: In page 63, line 43, leave out from "paragraph" to "appropriate" in line 44.

In line 47, at end insert:

3.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect in relation to any compulsory acquisition to which section one of this Act applies where—

(a) the relevant land consists of or includes the whole or part of a house (in this paragraph referred to as "the relevant house") and, on the date of the making of the compulsory purchase order in pursuance of which the acquisition is effected, the person then entitled to the relevant interest was, in right of that interest, in occupation of the relevant house or part thereof as a private dwelling, and
(b) that person either continues, on the date of service of the notice to treat, to be entitled to the relevant interest, or, if he has died before that date, continued to be entitled to that interest immediately before his death, and
(c) the acquisition is under the Act of 1957, in such circumstances that any of the provisions of that Act as to compulsory purchase at site value have effect in relation to the acquisition, or is an acquisition, in connection with which an order is made and confirmed under the last preceding paragraph in respect of the relevant house.
In the following provisions of this paragraph any reference to "the dwelling" is a reference to so much of the relevant house as the person referred to in head (a) of this subparagraph occupied as therein mentioned.

(2) Subject to the next following sub-paragraph, if the amount of the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest would, apart from this paragraph, be less than the gross value of the dwelling, the amount of the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of that interest shall be an amount equal to the gross value of the dwelling.

(3) Where any payment to which this subparagraph applies is payable, any reference in the last preceding sub-paragraph to the amount of the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest shall

be construed as a reference to the aggregate of that amount and of the amount of the payment (or, if more than one, of the amounts of the payments) to which this sub-paragraph applies.

(4) The last preceding sub-paragraph applies—

(a) to any payment under section thirty or section sixty of the Act of 1957, in so far as it falls to be made to the person entitled to the relevant interest and is attributable to the relevant house;
(b) to any payment which falls to be made in respect of the relevant interest under Part II of the Second Schedule to the Act of 1957.

(5) For the purposes of this paragraph the gross value of the dwelling shall be determined as follows: —

(a) if the dwelling constitutes the whole of the relevant house, the gross value of the dwelling shall be taken to be the value which, on the date of service of the notice to treat, is shown in the valuation list then in force as the gross value of that house for rating purposes;
(b) if the dwelling is only part of the relevant house, an apportionment shall he made by the valuation officer of the gross value of the relevant house for rating purposes, as shown in the valuation list in force on the date of service of the notice to treat, and the gross value of the dwelling shall be taken to be the amount certified by the valuation officer as being the amount which, on such an apportionment, is properly attributable to the dwelling.

(6) Any reference in this paragraph to the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest shall be construed as excluding so much (if any) of that compensation as is attributable to disturbance or to severance or injurious affection.

(7) In this paragraph "the valuation officer" has the same meaning as in Part III of the Local Government Act, 1948.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, in page 64, line 25, at the end, to insert:
5. Where houses are acquired as being unfit for human habitation in pursuance of this part of the Act and the acquiring authority allows the tenants to remain in such houses pending demolition, the authority shall account to the owners of the land from whom the houses were compulsorily acquired for the net amount of the rents received after deducting the cost of repairs and insurance and a management charge not exceeding seven and a half per cent. of the gross rent.
The Amendment provides that where a local authority has acquired houses as being unfit for human habitation and then allowed the tenants to continue living there while continuing to collect rents from them, pending the demolition of the houses, the local authority shall be


required to account to the former owners of the property for the net rents it receives, after deducting the cost of repairs, insurance and rates.
My hon. Friends and I put down this Amendment because we have heard of local authorities which have condemned houses as being unfit for human habitation and have then allowed them to remain in habitation for one reason or another, while continuing to collect the rents and receive very much more in a single year than they paid by way of compensation to the late owners. I will not weary the Committee with too many details, but in regard to Birmingham many cases have been brought to our attention of houses which have been condemned, and where the confirmation of the order by the Ministry has resulted in the freeholder receiving the site value and the leaseholder having to transfer his interest in the property to the Corporation for a token payment of £1.
A specific case which has been brought to our notice of seven houses which were sold under a lease which had 23 years to run at the time of the service of notice to treat, which produced together a gross rent of £220 a year and a net rent of £121 a year, after deduction of the ground rent, rates and other outgoings. The Corporation acquired those seven houses compulsorily and has collected rents on them since November, 1957, although it has neither reconditioned them nor commenced to pull them down. The compensation offered was only £1. The district valuer has disallowed additional payments under Section 35 of the 1954 Act, on the ground that in 1947 it could not possibly have been foreseen that this type of property would have been condemned.
Another example comes from Stoke-on-Trent. Here notices to treat were served at the end of 1957 in respect of property comprised in a clearance area, and notices of entry were served at the same time. It is true that interest is payable from the date of the expiry of the notice of entry but, even so, the compensation and the interest together are less than the net rents which the local authority has received since it took possession. In this case, as in the Birmingham cases, the local authority is, in effect, profiting financially from its own delay in re-housing tenants.
I do not think anyone would say that in those cases the local authorities should be allowed to do that. I hope that the Minister will agree that something ought to be done about it, something on the lines of the new clause standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Eric Errington) and myself.

Mr. Mitchison: Is it the intention and the effect of the Amendment that the profits to which the hon. Gentleman has referred should be handed over, after certain deductions, to people who are no longer the owners of the house, who have received compensation in respect of their acquisition?

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: What I seek to do is to say that the owners should require the authority which has taken the house compulsorily to act as agents for the former owners, and to account to the former owners for the net rents they receive, that is, for the gross rents after deducting insurance, cost of repairs and a management charge not exceeding 7½ per cent.

Mr. McInnes: I was somewhat surprised when I observed on the Order Paper the new Clause dealing with unfit houses. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) represents a Scottish constituency, and I assume he has no knowledge of such conditions existing in Scotland. Therefore, I take it that the new Clause would apply only to England and Wales. I think that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland would confirm my submission that there is no local authority in Scotland which, having taken the necessary step in respect of these unfit houses, would attempt to seek to extract rents from the tenants for many months or, as in the case of Birmingham, for at least two years. I should like to know from the hon. Member if his intention is that this provision should apply to Scotland.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I do not think any harm would be done if the new Clause were applied universally.

Mr. Brooke: I am glad to hear that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) condemns the practice which my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) is seeking to render illegal. If I cannot


advise the Committee to accept the new Clause, it is not because I fail to recognise the importance of this issue. It is small in extent, but it is something which ought not to be ignored, and in a moment I will suggest what may be a better approach.
Subject to one proviso, the statutory position is that a local authority which acquires an unfit house has a statutory duty to cause it to be vacated as soon as may be, and to secure the demolition of the house. That involves re-housing the tenants. Whatever the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) may say, it is repugnant to the ordinary sense of justice for a local authority to acquire a house at site value and then proceed to collect £50 or £100 in rent from the house over a period without paying that money back into the house before it is demolished.

Mr. Mitchison: I do not know why the Minister mentions me. I said nothing about that aspect of the matter. I asked whether it was the intention of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) that the profits should be handed over to people who are no longer the owners of the house and who had received compensation for it.

12 midnight.

Mr. Brooke: They would have received site value compensation.
If I understood my hon. Friend aright, he was not necessarily criticising an authority which collected rents and put them back into the houses by doing necessary repairs. He was concerned with the action of the authority—and there have been a few examples of this kind—in a case where, apparently, after compensation had been paid for the acquisition of the house, and paid on a site basis, so that there was nothing for the house, the authority proceeded to collect and pocket the rent for the house.

Mr. MacColl: Presumably that money went into the authority's housing revenue account.

Mr. Brooke: I think it would go into the housing revenue account. I was personalizing the local authority for the moment.
A practice of that kind—putting the rents into the housing revenue account after compensation had been paid for the

acquisition—is certainly not necessary under the Housing Acts, nor, in my submission, is it justifiable. The right course is for the re-housing of the occupants to take place before the acquisition of the house.
Let me "come clean" and say that. although in a past existence I have criticised the London County Council—the largest housing authority in the country so far as I know—it invariably follows the course of rehousing the occupants before acquiring the property. As my hon. Friend has said, there have been a few cases where local authorities seem to have followed the other course. In fairness, I must say that since I have been Minister, when I have arranged for the attention of such local authorities to be drawn to the undesirability of the practice, they have in the main acceded to a suggestion of that kind and altered their practice to something more commendable.
After this debate I propose to send a circular to all local authorities in England and Wales setting out the views which I have been expounding to the Committee, explaining the proper procedure, and suggesting in firm terms that it should be followed. I think it justifiable to assert that when local authorities receive such a circular making perfectly plain what is the correct procedure, they will on the whole adopt that practice.
If I do not accept my hon. Friend's Amendment, one of my reasons is that I am doubtful whether it would be effective. Judging by the character of this property, I think that most local authorities would get round the plan of the Amendment by putting money back into the house so that in fact there would be no surplus. Though that would not be an undesirable result, it is not the aim of my hon. Friend in moving this Amendment. He wishes to induce local authorities to act as they should, and delay the acquisition of the house until it has been vacated. There is a further consideration. In the 1954 Act, and what is now Section 48 of the 1957 Act, provision is made for patching. Now local authorities have the power to defer demolition of houses which, in the opinion of the authority, are, or can be, rendered capable of providing accommodation of a standard adequate for the time being.
It is common knowledge that Birmingham has been in the forefront of those local authorities which use the patching procedure, and when I heard my hon. Friend mention Birmingham, I was a little surprised. I should have thought it the normal procedure of the Birmingham Corporation on acquiring houses of this character not to demolish but to patch them, as that would be a reasonable course to pursue in the case of a local authority with such a large slum clearance programme. I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that if one were to legislate on this matter, one would have to make provision for those authorities which adopt that procedure.
I hope that legislation will not be necessary; it would certainly be more complicated than this Amendment. If local authorities on receiving this circular were still obdurate and took no notice of it, but insisted on continuing to follow a practice which did not commend itself to the House of Commons, then, maybe, legislation would become necessary. But I do not think that situation will arise. I ask my hon. Friend to accept from me that I have every intention of sending out a circular on the lines I have indicated, and I sincerely believe that that will achieve the object he has in mind.

Mr. MacColl: The right hon. Gentleman used the phrase, "patching might he reasonable". In a Bill which is dedicated to wiping up as many blunders of the Prime Minister as can be wiped up, it is a little disingenuous for the Minister to describe one of the brightest jewels in the Prime Minister's crown—the inventing of patching—as a mere makeshift to be used only by local authorities after a careful examination by the Minister to see that they do not abuse it.
Why were local authorities invited by circulars to use the patching procedure? Surely it was because the Prime Minister thought it desirable that it should be done? I thought the right hon. Gentleman once again went out of his way to be offensive to local housing authorities in talking about them being obdurate. This is another example of his hostility to them, which comes out the whole time.
As far as I could see, we have no evidence at all that any of these authorities which have been criticised in this way are not in fact acting in accordance with

powers under the Housing Act, 1957, particularly Section 48. If they are not acting under that Section, surely they are under a legal duty to demolish the houses and vacate the land under Section 47. I presume that it would be possible for the Minister or someone to apply for a prerogative writ to compel them to do so. Why does the Minister need any more powers than already exist? Does he know of any cases where action is not taken under Section 48?

Mr. Mitchison: I too want to say something on this Amendment. I can judge it only by what it purports to do. It purports to hand over certain sums of money, described by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) as profits, to people who have sold their houses and been compensated in full, adequately or inadequately, for those houses. To say one can act as agent for owners when the people whose agent one is supposed to be—but, incidentally, whose agent one is not—are no longer owners, betrays a confusion of mind I should never expect even in a chartered surveyor.
The Amendment makes a most monstrous proposition. It is the extension of a little more money at any time within five years to a case where that particular principle has absolutely no grounds of application at all. If I may say so, it is some Shylockesque Amendment in favour of the owners of slum property, and nothing less.
The Minister's proposed circular calls for a few comments. I agree with what my hon. Friend has just said about the fact that what has happened in Birmingham has happened under the famous "patching legislation" introduced by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Prime Minister; but there is no hon. Member for Birmingham here at the moment. I looked for the people who are supposed to compose the "we" to whom the hon. Member for North Angus (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) referred on several occasions during his speech and I can only assume that he was referring to those hon. Members whose names appear on the Order Paper. None of them, so far as I can see, is an hon. Member from Birmingham or Stoke-on-Trent. I cannot see who the "we," in quotation marks, are supposed to be unless what I assume is right.
The Minister's proposed circular has some resemblance to that circular which was sent to local authorities urging them to try to re-house people who were unfortunate enough to have been turned out of their homes by the operation of the Rent Act. When, however, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of re-housing people, he should remember that he has made it very hard for local authorities to play their part. One of his achievements as Minister of Housing and Local Government has been to succeed in reducing, year by year, the number of houses which local authorities can build. He has entirely ceased to build, or even to designate, any new towns, and has lowered to an unprecedented level the building of houses by public authorities.
Having done all that as part of his functions, I hope that he will not now urge local authorities to re-house people whose re-housing has been made into a very difficult problem. I can only hope that the principles which he has in mind is right. There is no evidence that the local authorities have violated any of the Regulations which the Minister has issued, and what he now proposes, while doing no particular good, will I suppose do no particular harm.

Mr. Ross: It is interesting to hear a Scottish hon. Member advancing reasons for amending a Schedule which relates to England and Wales and particularly to places like Birmingham and Stoke-on-Trent. I commend him for his researches, if not always for his accuracy. The fact is that hon. Members opposite really are showing a desire, whether they believe it or not, of being labelled as friends of the landlords. Of course, they deny it, but there can be no doubt about it if one looks at this Amendment. The Minister, I thought, gave a very generous and sympathetic interpretation of the wishes of his hon. Friends by saying that he hoped that local authorities would delay acquisition until the houses were actually vacated. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have read and re-read the Amendment and, with all respect to him, it says nothing of the kind; and there was nothing in the speech of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley), when he addressed himself to the Amendment, that had anything to do with delaying action.
The hon. Member spoke of unfairness to the former owners of this property acquired because it was unfit for human habitation, and also drew attention to the fact that profits were still being made out of it; and incidentally added that, if there was a profit, it should go to the former owners. There was no word of consideration at all in respect of anything for the tenants. I thought there was a reasonable moral issue here that, if the house was unfit for human habitation, no one should be making a profit out of it.
12.15 a.m.
I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had been a little more forthcoming about that. He nearly got on to the right course, but he turned down the suggestion for all the wrong reasons. His wrong reasons were not related, I am sure, to his sincerity, but to his wish to let his hon. Friend down lightly. This deplorable suggestion is one which I certainly shall not forget, especially when I shall be addressing people shortly in Scotland about the activities of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Page: Does the hon. Gentleman really think it is a deplorable suggestion that, if for a nominal sum a local authority has acquired property as unfit for human habitation, saying that it is unfit, and then continues to let it, in sheer hypocrisy over the matter of unfitness, collecting a rent from it for two years, in the example my hon. Friend gave—

Mr. MacColl: Surely, the point is that if that is happening, it is against the law. That is against the Housing Act, as the hon. Gentleman agrees. What he is really saying is that, provided the landlord has his share of the booty, it does not matter that the law is disregarded. That is a most astonishing morality. If it is wrong to have the houses occupied at all, steps should be taken to see that the law is enforced, but, the hon. Gentleman says, it is quite all right so long as the booty is shared with the old owner of the property. That is really quite amazing.

Mr. Page: The hon. Member is putting words into my mouth which I have not said. I have not said what I wanted to say yet. I was merely asking a rhetorical question of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Ross: May I answer it, then?

Mr. Page: It was a rhetorical question, and I had not even finished it.

Mr. Ross: Surely, if the hon. Gentleman objects to words being put, as he says, into his mouth by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), I have a right to object to his asking me a question and then telling me it is rhetorical. He is obviously wanting to put the answer into my mouth. I thought I had made it perfectly plain that I am entirely opposed to profits being made out of houses which are unfit for human habitation. I am not concerned about who is taking the rent. It is wrong. The Minister is right to do what he can and to say clearly that that is how he feels about it, getting the people out, having them rehoused, and pulling the unfit houses down.

Mr. Page: I am very much in agreement with the hon. Member, and I was about to say that. If these houses really are unfit for human habitation, then the tenants should be found other accommodation and should be moved. It is quite wrong for the local authorities to continue to let really unfit houses to tenants.
But, of course, in many cases, the houses are not unfit as the ordinary person would understand that term, as I said earlier in discussing Section 4. The excuse is used under that Section to say that houses are unfit for human habitation, and the owner I use the word "owner" deliberately, not trying to hide behind "owner-occupier" or anything like that—is given site value. The local authority continues to let the houses, and it lets them because they are not really unfit.

Mr. McInnes: The owner has a right of appeal.

Mr. Page: Not after the compulsory purchase order is through and the authority purchases the property from him.

Mr. McInnes: Of course, the question of the compulsory purchase order arises, and, on the representation that a house is unfit, there is a certain procedure to be gone through by the local authority. At that stage, the owner has a right of appeal.

Mr. Page: I shall not quote Section 4 again. It has been quoted already. Very

many of these houses can be said to be unfit under the wording of that Section, yet they do, in fact, provide very good homes. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) talked about a confusion of mind on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley), but there was a shocking and complete confusion in his own mind. He spoke of compensation for the house. Of course, the owner is not given compensation for the house in these cases. It is taken from him as unfit, and all he is given is compensation for the site. That is what we complain about.
Compensation is given for the site. The house is then let as being fit and the local authority takes the rent. That must be unfair, and it is quite right that my right hon. Friend should tell local authorities, "Either you rehouse the tenants at once or else you should not take the property, and, if you do, then you should treat it as still being the property of the owner from the point of view of rent."

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: It would be great fun to continue this debate, but it would be even more fun to go home to bed. I am very satisfied with my right hon. Friend's answer. I do not care how the thing is done so long as it is done somehow. I think that my right hon. Friend's suggestion of a Ministerial circular with a threat behind it would be a very good thing. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 64, line 26, after "Schedule," insert "'house' has the meaning assigned to it by section one hundred and eighty-nine of the Act of 1957, and".—[Mr. Brooke.]

In page 66, line 1, leave out from "paragraph" to "appropriate" in line 2.—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

Amendment proposed: In page 66, line 5, at end insert:

2.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect in relation to any compulsory acquisition to which section one of this Act applies where

(a) the relevant land consists of or includes the whole or part of a house (in this paragraph referred to as "the relevant house") and, on the date of the making of the compulsory purchase order in pursuance of which the acquisition is effected, the person then entitled to the


relevant interest was, in right of that interest, in occupation of the relevant house or part thereof as a private dwelling, and
(b) that person either continues, on the date of service of the notice to treat, to be entitled to the relevant interest, or, if he has died before that date, continued to be entitled to that interest immediately before his death, and
(c) the acquisition is under the Act of 1950, in such circumstances that any of the following provisions of that Act, that is to say, subsection (2) of section twelve, subsection (4) of section seventeen, and subsection (2) of section thirty-six (which relates to compensation at site value) have effect in relation to the acquisition, or is an acquisition in connection with which an order is made and confirmed under the last preceding paragraph in respect of the relevant house.
In the following provisions of this paragraph any reference to "the dwelling" is a reference to so much of the relevant house as the person referred to in head (a) of this subparagraph occupied as therein mentioned.

(2) Subject to the next following sub-paragraph, if the amount of the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest would, apart from this paragraph, be less than the gross annual value of the dwelling, the amount of the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of that interest shall be an amount equal to the gross annual value of the dwelling.

(3) Where a payment falls to be made under section forty of the Act of 1950 to the person entitled to the relevant interest, and that payment is attribuable to the relevant house, any reference in the last preceding sub-paragraph to the amount of compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest shall he construed as a reference to the aggregate of that amount and of the amount of the payment.

(4) For the purposes of this paragraph the gross annual value of the dwelling shall be de-ermined as follows:—

(a) if the dwelling constitutes the whole of the relevant house, the gross annual value of the dwelling shall be taken to be the value which, on the date of service of the notice to treat, is shown in the valuation roll then in force as the gross annual value of that house for rating purposes;
(b) if the dwelling is only part of the relevant house, an apportionment shall be made of the gross annual value of the relevant house for rating purposes, as shown in the valuation roll in force on the date of service of the notice to treat, and the gross annual value of the dwelling shall he taken to be the amount which, on such an apportionment, is properly attributable to the dwelling.

(5) Any reference in this paragraph to the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest shall be construed as excluding so much (if any) of that

compensation as is attributable to disturbance or to severance or injurious affection.

(6) Nothing in this paragraph shall affect the amount which is to be taken for the purposes of section sixty-two of the Scottish Act of 1954 (which relates to the consideration payable for the discharge of land from feu duty and other incumbrances) as the amount of the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest.—[Mr. N Macpherson.]

Mr. Ross: I was hoping that we should get some explanation of this Amendment. I know that there is a suggestion that it was touched upon earlier, but we did not have a full discussion.

The Chairman: Yes, we did. I was in the Chair myself when the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) moved his new Clause, and this was one of the Amendments discussed then.

Mr. Ross: It was not mentioned.

The Chairman: It may not have been mentioned, but the hon. Member was there.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 36, at end insert:
(3) In this paragraph "hereditament" has the same meaning as in the War Damage Act, 1943.—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

Amendment proposed: In page 66, line 38, at end insert:
'house' has the meaning assigned to it by section one hundred and eighty-four of that Act".—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

Mr. Ross: I wish to say—

The Chairman: This Amendment has also been discussed. I was in the Chair myself. If the hon. Member takes objection, it is not my affair.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 66, leave out lines 39 and 40.—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Ross: I do not think that we have discussed this matter. I do not propose to make a very long speech, although I certainly could. Anyone who looks at the Second Schedule will appreciate that it constitutes a very considerable matter on which we could talk at very great length.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Why not read it?

Mr. Ross: I could read it; I could do all sorts of things, but I only want to ask a fairly simple question which I thought might have been in order earlier. However, I can ask it now. I want to know what will be the effect of the Amendments we have passed to the Schedule and, in particular, in respect of subsection (6) which has been added in page 66, line 5, and whether or not what the Government have done there is consistent with their attitude to the land superior in all other parts of the Bill. I rose really to congratulate the Government, if I read the Schedule aright as it stands, on the fact that they have taken one case where they do not have the opportunity of assisting the land superior. I only want to know whether I am right in my assumption in that respect.
The Joint Under-Secretary went out of his way to deny improvement in the position of the land superior in the calculation whether the discharge of feu-duty and other incumbrances had been purchased. I should like to know whether I am right on that.
I should like to know, too, what exactly has been the effect upon the whole Schedule of the change made to the meaning of the word "house." It was defined by the Act of 1950, and now, as the Schedule has been amended, it is defined by the War Damage Act, 1943.
I have another 64 questions, but in view of the fact that it is fairly late I propose to leave it at that for the moment. We may have an opportunity on Report further to discover just exactly what this Schedule means.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The reason why the superior is excluded—

Mr. Ross: He is excluded?

Mr. Macpherson: Yes, he is excluded—is because the whole purpose of the Amendment was to benefit the owner, and, therefore, the superior is excluded by the new paragraph 2 (6). Had the decision been to give assistance in this case by way of compensation, of course it would have been additional compensation for purchase of the house, and then, of course, that would have been liable to have been taken up by burdens of various amounts. That is why this procedure has been adopted, so as to make certain that the benefit goes where it was intended. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point.
The answer to his second point is simply that the definition of the word "house" is transferred because this provision makes reference to houses within the meaning of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950. It is appropriate to transfer the definition of "house" from paragraph 1 (6) where it is at present to paragraph 4 which contains the definition applicable to Part II of the Schedule.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Title

Amendment made: In line 13, leave out "and contributions."—[Mr. Brooke.]

Bill reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), to be considered this day.

NEW INDUSTRIES, FOREST OF DEAN

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

12.28 a.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: I want to raise the matter of industrial prospects and employment in that part of my constituency known as the Forest of Dean. People there are disappointed because the Board of Trade seems by its recent action to have forgotten the problem which exists there. The prospect of Government help in that place seems to be less than it was a short while ago. I refer, of course, to the application of the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act. There seems to be no prospect that it will be applied to my constituency, and I want to elicit more reasons than I have heard so far why the Board of Trade considers it impossible. In the course of the last few weeks, unemployment has risen to 4£6 per cent. Moreover, as I shall show, it is likely to be persistent.
I should like to review briefly the position in the industrial part of the Forest of Dean. Up to 1938, nearly half the working population was engaged in the extractive industries—coal mining, iron-ore mining and quarrying, and in the old staple industry of tinplate production. It was an unhealthy condition, because these industries were in process of decline, partly through the exhaustion of raw materials and partly because of technical changes in industry which had made the old process of tinplate making no longer economic.
But changes have taken place over the last 22 years. During that time 6,000 people, most of whom were formerly employed in these extractive industries, have been employed in new industries. Now, only one-fifth of the industrial population is employed in the old extractive industries like coal mining, whilst formerly nearly half of that population was so employed.
This desirable change has been brought about in two ways. The first is by the efforts of local bodies which have been very active in the matter. The Royal Forest of Dean Industrial Development

Association has been very active in trying to encourage new industries to come into the area. Secondly, the Board of Trade itself during the war had emergency powers which it used to direct industry to the Forest of Dean. When those emergency powers came to an end, it used persuasion, which at times has been useful. The result has been that since the war firms employing about 2,000 men and women have come into the area.
Yet today the industrial prospects are again very bad, and it is quite possible that if things continue like this we may have a return to the situation before the war when up to 40 per cent. of the insurable population was unemployed. When technical changes of the more or less permanent kind, to which I have referred take place, they cause great social disturbance. People drift away and there is a loss of social capital in the form of schools, and public investments of all kinds, including water and electricity supplies which are no longer used. In the past 18 months the process of decay of the old extractive industries has been gathering speed. They are now declining more quickly than ever
In the autumn of 1957 the last remaining tinplate industry, at Lydney, closed down. It has been transferred to the new strip mills in South Wales. The coal-mining industry is approaching a new crisis. Early this year one pit closed down and 400 men were put out of work. Two more may close in the not so distant future. One can reckon on only two, or at the most three, pits continuing to work. I will not go into the reasons for this—it is another matter altogether—but it is, as I shall try to show, a permanent state of affairs.
The industrial prospects of the Forest of Dean will, therefore, be very bad unless the process of bringing in new industries is much more rapidly accelerated than has been the case up to now. The Industrial Development Association and the local authorities have been working feverishly since the new crisis began to develop. They expected some assistance from the Board of Trade. Instead of that, I am afraid the latest development is that we seem to get nothing. A number of new places have been designated under the Distribution of Industry Act—about 19 places were recently scheduled—but the Forest of Dean has been left out.
Even the opposite to what one would expect is taking place. It has come to my knowledge that a certain small firm seeking assistance to expand from the Board of Trade has been advised that if it wants to do so it had better go outside the Forest. I have had some correspondence with the Parliamentary Secretary. Perhaps he will say whether this is really so or not. I am informed that it is so. Naturally, we are all very disturbed about this, because apparently not only are we not to have assistance but it is to be suggested to industries that they should go elsewhere. That is in spite of the fact that unemployment in the Forest of Dean is rising rapidly.
I demand that the Forest of Dean should be held to qualify under the Act because it has more than 4 per cent. unemployment. In January the Parliamentary Secretary announced—I take this from the report in The Times—that to qualify under the Act for assistance an area must have had an unemployment rate of not less than 4 per cent. and it should persist for at least one year. The Forest of Dean has an unemployment rate of more than 4 per cent., but it has not had such a rate for a year. However, I contend that it is disastrous to leave a place to decay for a year before something is done. Is it true that we have to have an unemployment rate of more than 4 per cent, for a year before we can receive assistance under the Act?
Local initiative has done as much as it can. What can it do in the face of indifference of this kind on the part of the Board of Trade? Have we really to stick it for a year? It is not good enough. With a problem of this kind it is not sound policy to wait until things become disastrous. The wise policy anticipates trouble.
The Board of Trade may say that we must wait and that things will get better. However, my point is that this is not a question of a temporary decline in trade. This is not a matter which will get better. As the Minister of Labour said last week, the unemployment figures are going down and the indications are that trade is improving. But that will not affect us, for we have a permanent decline due to technical changes in industry.
Nor will it be much good if we are told that in other places somewhere near

the district of the Forest of Dean new industries are coming. In Gloucester, for instance, there was a problem, which at one time looked like becoming acute, because of the considerable reduction of the aircraft industry, but I am glad to say that new industries are now coming.
While it is true that 2,000 people from the Forest of Dean go to work in Gloucester, it is not good enough to tell us that the new industries going to Gloucester will have to do for us, too. It is not good enough that 2,000 people should have to travel that distance every day. Industry is required somewhere near the centres of population where unemployment is greatest.
Nor is it any use suggesting that there will be increased industry in South Wales, 30, 40 or 50 miles away. That will not help us in the Forest of Dean. We cannot expect men to travel distances of that kind every day—or does the Board of Trade think that those men should emigrate and leave their homes where their families have been settled for generations? Many workers in the Forest of Dean have smallholdings and small farms and rights to run sheep in the forest, rights which their families have possessed for generations. All this means that it is most desirable and necessary that new industries should come and that local authorities should be assisted and not hindered by the Board of Trade.
I must therefore press that the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act should be applied to us. We need the facilities to give financial encouragement to new industries. I ask the Board of Trade to reconsider the whole position in the light of future developments, because it is not the situation that this is a temporary depression which will right itself, in the course of a short time. This is the case of the decay of old industries and the need for the coming of new. On a small scale, what is happening in the Forest of Dean is a replica of what is going on in South Wales and other areas where the old extractive industries are on the decline and where a change in the industrial make-up is necessary. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give some assurance on this matter.

12.44 a.m.

Mr. John Diamond: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his


courtesy in allowing me not more than two minutes, for I was anxious to support my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price), because his problems are very much associated with mine in Gloucester.
There is great anxiety in both our constituencies, and a number of neighbouring constituencies, about the increasing unemployment which has its worst effect and its highest percentage in the Forest of Dean. Only last Wednesday, many aircraft workers were lobbying hon. Members here and were most anxious to hear about the future, and quite properly so, too, because in one factory in Gloucester 4,000 are to become unemployed in the course of the next nine months.
It is true that, after 18 months or two years, 2,000 of those will be required again for British Nylon Spinners, but in the meantime 4,000 will be out of work, and 2,000 will be out of work permanently. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, about 2.000 people from his constituency come into mine every day in order to find work. Therefore, the increasing unemployment anticipated in Gloucester will have its effect on the Forest of Dean, and make a most unsatisfactory position.
In those circumstances, surely it is up to the Government to give greater support to the principle of taking work to the workers. It is neither my hon. Friend's desire nor mine that unemployment in the Forest of Dean should be exported to Gloucester, or anywhere else in the neighbourhood, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to say something very encouraging.

12.46 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) for the very courteous and restrained way in which he put his case, and I also thank him for sending me a letter outlining the points he would raise. I realise that the matter is of great importance to him, and I share his concern. The persistence of these pockets of unemployment is one of the most serious problems that I have to contend with. I equally appreciate the related problem which has been raised by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond).
The history of developments in the Forest of Dean and of the fading away of the extractive industries there is one with which I would not quarrel, except to make the comment that there has been rather more diversity of industry in the Forest than the hon. Member's account would signify. The latest analysis we have for the insured population relates to 1957—before the closure of the Eastern United Colliery—and in that year, out of a total population engaged in manufacturing and extractive industries, as distinct from distribution industries, and so on, only 26 per cent. were engaged in mining. To this has to be added 20 per cent. in the engineering and electrical industries, and 16 per cent. in the food, drink and tobacco industries. The remaining 38 per cent. are spread over agriculture, the vehicle industry, precision instruments, wood manufacture, and various other industries. Less than 20 per cent. of the whole insured population were engaged in mining. Thus, although the closure of collieries is a serious matter, and I should be the last to minimise the consequences of it, the Forest of Dean is not so much a one-industry area as many places with which we have to deal.
The problems of the area have been accentuated recently. The hon. Member referred to the closure of the tinplate works in October, 1957, which meant that 390 men and 30 women lost their jobs there. It is very significant that four months later, in February, 1958, not less than 343 of those employed at the tinplate works, or over 80 per cent., had already found, or been placed in, other work. That shows that a year ago the Forest of Dean was not, in general, a difficult area, though even at that time some kinds of labour may not have found it easy to find work. As the hon. Member knows, this tinplate works is now occupied by a new tenant, introduced by the Board of Trade, and that will have further helped to provide employment.
The closing of the Eastern United Colliery is, as I well appreciate, a much more serious matter. I know that the Chairman of the National Coal Board has been in touch with the hon. Member about it and has assured him that he realises the serious consequences of closing down this colliery, and that it is the Board's aim to ensure that when


closures inevitably take place as little hardship is involved as possible. The coal reserves in the Forest are limited, and production costs have been much higher than the average for the Board's collieries. I am informed that it is unlikely that any further collieries in the Forest will be closed this year, but I should be less than frank if I did not acknowledge that one colliery employing 250 men is very near exhaustion, and that the Board is entering into negotiations with the unions concerned with a view to its closing in about 1960. Naturally the National Coal Board and the Ministry of Labour will co-operate to do everything they can to find alternative employment for the men thus released.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, the closing of the mines is not the only difficulty with which his constituency is threatened. There is likely to be a further reduction in the labour force now engaged in the Gloucester area in the aircraft industry, and there may be some consequential unemployment in other engineering firms in the district, although it is too early to say what the figures are likely to be. To turn to the better news, three or four firms already in the Forest of Dean are expanding their activities and as a result expect to provide a further 300 or thereabouts with jobs.
This is the prospect for the Forest itself. I cannot share the argument that an expansion of industry in Gloucester is of no concern to people living in the Forest of Dean. We know of four large industrial concerns which will shortly be starting up there. British Nylon Spinners is taking over the Ministry of Supply factory at Brockworth and Thos. Walls, Bryce Berger and Daystrom are all going to establish themselves in Gloucester. Each of these will have large labour requirements. How far they will be met from any redundancies in the aircraft industries or from those locally unemployed, and how far they will have labour requirements which the Forest of Dean can meet, remains to be seen. But, putting it at its lowest, I would hope that when these new factories are in operation at least as many residents in the hon. Member's constituency will be finding work in that area as are finding it now,

or perhaps more. I thought it would be useful to outline the employment situation and prospects as we see them, because it is only in the light of the past, present and future that we can outline the prospects of Government assistance.
Unemployment in the Forest of Dean averaged just under 2½ per cent, over 1958. I agree that the rate at which unemployment may persist in the future is a relevant factor, and we have recognised that in our policy. The fact is, however, that the rate throughout 1958 was little above the national average. In the first three months of this year the rate of unemployment has increased. In January it was 3·5 per cent. and in February and March it was 4·6 per cent., though it may be a hopeful sign that in March over 10 per cent, of the unemployed were classified as temporarily stopped compared with only 2 per cent. in February.
If we were satisfied that unemployment in the Forest of Dean was going to continue for a long period at the level of February and March we should not wait for months before adding it to the list. But there will be a number of changes in the employment situation in the surrounding area and we cannot at this stage have any idea what the outcome will be. I have mentioned the four large firms which are going to Gloucester, and are expected between them to provide over 4,000 new jobs in the next year or two.
I now come to the point about the advice the hon. Gentleman alleged we gave to one firm in his constituency to move out. We would do nothing to discourage firms from setting up in the Forest of Dean. If any suitable firm wanted an industrial development certificate it would be freely granted. The hon. Gentleman referred to a conversation between one firm in his area and a representative of the Board of Trade who suggested that the firm should leave the Forest of Dean and go to one of the places where unemployment was higher. We cannot give details of what went on in a conversation between a firm and the Board of Trade because they are confidential, but it is certainly no part of the Board's policy to encourage industry to move out of the Forest of Dean, and the official concerned did not try to do so.
The hon. Member has, I think, met the Board's Regional Controller in Bristol


and knows of the efforts he has been making to try to get new industry to that part of the world. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman paid a tribute in his speech to the work of the Forest of Dean Development Association, which is working closely with our Regional Controller.
Both hon. Members will realise that, with or without the inducement of the Distribution of Industry Acts, there are a limited number of firms which wish to extend and which are able to go to new localities. We do our best to steer them to the areas where the unemployment problem is most difficult, but the more places we add to the list, the more difficult it is to steer these few footloose firms to the places where unemployment is even more serious than in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
While I recognise the claims of the Forest of Dean and shall watch the situation carefully over the next few weeks and months, I cannot at this time say that the situation there is such that it should be immediately added to the D.A.T.A.C. list. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no time limit. Places can be added to or extracted from the list as the situation reveals the need. I should be prepared to reconsider what I have said tonight about the Forest of Dean if I thought the situation had deteriorated to such an extent that further action on the part of the Board of Trade was warranted.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to One o'clock.